Survey on researchers outside of Europe · 2018. 4. 17. · regarding their mobility patterns,...

IDEA Consult, WIFO and Technopolis December – 2017

Survey on researchers outside

of Europe

Annex to MORE3 study: support data collection and

analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths

of researchers

Survey on researchers outside of Europe – Annex to MORE3 study: Support data collection and

analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers

European Commission

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation

Directorate B — Open Innovation and Open Science

Unit B2 - Open Science and ERA policy

Contact Emiliano Carozza

E-mail [email protected]

[email protected]

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in December 2017.

This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the

Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-81480-8 doi:10.2777/074782 KI-02-18-357-EN-N

© European Union, 2018.

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by

Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39).

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be sought directly

from the copyright holders.

mailto:[email protected]

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Survey on researchers outside of Europe

Annex to MORE3 study: Support data collection

and analysis concerning mobility patterns and

career paths or researchers

IDEA Consult, WIFO and Technopolis

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2017 European Research Area

https://www.google.be/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiCl5fxyunZAhWIzqQKHUDdAl0QjRwIBg&url=https://www.more3.eu/&psig=AOvVaw1DPdoU0oHmBIgDOFEhfhY0&ust=1521040315003724

European Commission – MORE3 Fourth Interim Report Global survey results

October 2017 3

Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 6

1.1. Objectives of the MORE3 study .................................................................... 6 1.2. Scope of the Global survey ......................................................................... 6 1.3. Guide to the reader .................................................................................... 7

2. Existing insights on global mobility .............................................................. 8 2.1. Motives and effects of mobility .................................................................... 8 2.2. ERA priorities ............................................................................................ 9 2.3. Mobility programmes and flows ................................................................. 10 2.4. Researchers’ awareness of EU mobility initiatives ......................................... 11

3. Conceptual framework and definitions ........................................................ 12 3.1. Conceptual framework .............................................................................. 12 3.2. Main definitions ....................................................................................... 14

3.2.1. Researcher ........................................................................................14 3.2.2. Field of Science ..................................................................................14 3.2.3. Research career .................................................................................15 3.2.4. Sectors .............................................................................................15 3.2.5. Mobility .............................................................................................15 3.2.6. Target groups based on citizenship and mobility patterns ........................19

4. Methodology ........................................................................................... 20 4.1. Sampling strategy and country focus.......................................................... 20 4.2. Distribution strategy ................................................................................ 21 4.3. Survey implementation and response ......................................................... 23

4.3.1. Survey implementation .......................................................................23 4.3.2. Response ..........................................................................................23 4.3.3. Sample composition ...........................................................................23

5. Characteristics of researchers and career paths ........................................... 29 5.1. Profile characteristics ............................................................................... 30

5.1.1. Sociodemographic information .............................................................30 5.1.2. Dual positions ....................................................................................40

5.2. Education and training: PhD studies ........................................................... 45 5.2.1. PhD degree or enrolment in PhD programme .........................................45 5.2.2. PhD supervision structure ....................................................................50 5.2.3. PhD training – transferable skills ..........................................................52

5.3. Recruitment ............................................................................................ 55 5.3.1. Open, transparent and merit-based recruitment .....................................55 5.3.2. Factors for recruitment .......................................................................58

5.4. Career progression .................................................................................. 60 5.4.1. Open, transparent and merit-based career progression ...........................60 5.4.2. Factors for career progression..............................................................63 5.4.3. Skills for future career progression .......................................................64 5.4.4. Confidence in future career prospects ...................................................67

6. Working conditions in current position ........................................................ 70 6.1. Characteristics of employment and contractual situation ............................... 71

6.1.1. Length of employment ........................................................................72 6.1.2. Contractual situation ..........................................................................72 6.1.3. Type of position .................................................................................73

6.2. Remuneration packages ........................................................................... 74 6.2.1. Researchers working in academia .........................................................79 6.2.2. Researchers working outside academia .................................................81


October 2017 4

7. Mobility, collaboration and networking ........................................................ 84 7.1. International mobility ............................................................................... 85

7.1.1. International long-term mobility of > 3 months......................................86 7.1.2. Short-term international mobility ....................................................... 105 7.1.3. Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits ................................. 108 7.1.4. Networking and remaining connected with Europe ................................ 109

7.2. Intersectoral mobility .............................................................................. 110 7.2.1. Stock .............................................................................................. 111 7.2.2. Flows and moves.............................................................................. 114 7.2.3. Effects ............................................................................................ 115

7.3. Interdisciplinary mobility ......................................................................... 117 7.3.1. Stock .............................................................................................. 117 7.3.2. Flows and moves.............................................................................. 118 7.3.3. Effects ............................................................................................ 119

7.4. Collaboration .......................................................................................... 121

8. Attractiveness of ERA .............................................................................. 125 8.1. Attractiveness based on perception of satisfaction in current research

position……………….. ................................................................................. 127 8.1.1. Non-science related working conditions ............................................... 129 8.1.2. Working conditions for scientific knowledge production ......................... 135 8.1.3. Career and mobility perspectives as working conditions ........................ 146

8.2. Attractiveness based on direct comparison between research systems .......... 150 8.3. Motives, barriers and effects .................................................................... 160

8.3.1. Motives ........................................................................................... 160 8.3.2. Barriers for mobility .......................................................................... 172 8.3.3. Effects of mobility ............................................................................ 176

8.4. Interest to work in Europe ....................................................................... 180 8.4.1. European researchers (TG1): return mobility ....................................... 180 8.4.2. Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (TG2): interest

to work in Europe ......................................................................................... 182 8.4.3. Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3):

interest to work in Europe .............................................................................. 182 8.4.4. Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (TG4): interest to work

in Europe ..................................................................................................... 183 8.5. Improving the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers:

policies………… ......................................................................................... 183 8.5.1. The attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers ................. 183 8.5.2. EU policies: Euraxess and (EU) funding ............................................... 186

9. Summary of main findings ....................................................................... 197 9.1. Profile characteristics – sociodemographic information and dual positions ...... 197 9.2. Education and training: PhD studies .......................................................... 197 9.3. Career Paths .......................................................................................... 198 9.4. Working conditions ................................................................................. 200 9.5. Mobility and collaboration ........................................................................ 201

9.5.1. International long term mobility (>3 month) ....................................... 201 9.5.2. Retention and return potential ........................................................... 202 9.5.3. Interest to work in the EU ................................................................. 202 9.5.4. International short-term mobility (<3 month) ...................................... 203 9.5.5. European network ............................................................................ 203 9.5.6. Intersectoral mobility ........................................................................ 203 9.5.7. Interdisciplinary mobility ................................................................... 204

9.6. Attractiveness of the ERA ........................................................................ 204 9.7. Conclusions and Implications for policy ...................................................... 208

9.7.1. Global characteristics of research ....................................................... 208


October 2017 5

9.7.2. Attractiveness of ERA as seen by researchers currently working abroad .. 209 9.7.3. Improving the attractiveness of ERA ................................................... 210

List of Tables ..................................................................................................... 215 List of Figures .................................................................................................... 217

Annexes ............................................................................................................ 221

1. Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 222

2. Definitions ..................................................................................................... 223

3. Policy-driven developments in concepts of career paths and working conditions...... 225

4. Additional info on sampling and survey implementation ....................................... 227

5. Overview table country group allocation ............................................................ 229

6. Additional graphs and tables chapter 5 .............................................................. 231





October 2017 6

1. Introduction

1.1. Objectives of the MORE3 study

The MORE 3 study, entitled “support of data collection and analysis concerning mobility

patterns and career paths of researchers” intends to update, improve and further

develop the set of indicators of the MORE2 study in order to meet the need for

indicators over time and assess the impact on researchers of policy measures introduced

during implementation of the EPR (European Partnership for Researchers). The MORE3

study provides new indicators and thus is based on new surveys to meet emerging policy

needs and priorities.

The main objective of the MORE3 study is defined in the Terms of Reference as:

“carrying out two major surveys and developing indicators to help monitor

progress towards an open labour market for researchers”

For this, four tasks are identified:

I. Carry out a survey of researchers currently working in the EU (and EFTA) in

higher education institutions (HEI) regarding their mobility patterns, career paths,

employment and working conditions (Task 1);

II. Carry out a Global survey of researchers currently working outside Europe

regarding their mobility patterns, career paths and working conditions (Task 2);

III. Update the set of internationally-comparable indicators on researchers (Task 3);

IV. Draft a final report that provides a comparative, policy-relevant analysis of the

mobility patterns, working conditions and career paths of researchers (Task 4).

This report is the Fourth Interim report of the MORE3 study, presenting the results of the

survey of researchers currently working outside Europe (the final report for Task 2:

Global survey results).

1.2. Scope of the Global survey

The Global survey focusses on mobility patterns, career paths, employment and working

conditions of researchers currently working outside Europe. The topics are similar to

those in the Task 1 EU HE survey, but the focus is different:

Task 1 EU HE survey Task 2 Global survey1

Target region of

employment

Researchers currently

working IN the EU

Researchers currently working

OUTSIDE the EU

Target sector2 Researchers at higher

education institutes

No specific sectoral focus (both

researchers from higher education

institutes and other organisations

can participate)

1 Consistent with the MORE2 approach. 2 A broad definition of ‘sector’ is used here: it is based on the difference between Higher Education

Institutions; private-not-for-profit organisations; public sector and government; large companies; and SMEs.


October 2017 7

Career stage

focus

Differentiates between PhD-

mobility (R1) and post-PhD

mobility (R2-R4)

Does not differentiate between PhD

mobility (R1) and post-PhD mobility

(R2-R4)

Representative

data

Provides representative data

at the EU28 and country level

Does not provide representative

data at the EU28 and country level

An important remark here is that this Global survey does not provide representative

data at the level of the countries covered. The sample was not set up to reflect the

proportion of researchers currently working outside the EU. Consequently, no weights are

applied and the dataset does not provide representative data on the number of

researchers and their mobility patterns from and to specific countries. Therefore, results

will need to be interpreted with care and no generalisations/extrapolations can be made

in this regard.

The target population of the Global survey consists of the following subgroups (in line

with the analysis in MORE23):

TG1: European researchers currently working outside the EU4;

TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past;

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU;

TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad.

1.3. Guide to the reader

In what follows, we first summarise the existent insights on global mobility in section 2.

In section 3, we resume the general conceptual framework of the MORE3 study and in

section 4 we point out a number of implications of the methodology for the interpretation

of the results.

Sections 5 to 8 contain the results of the Global survey in Task 2 of the study, structured

according to this conceptual framework:

Section 5: Characteristics of researchers and career paths

Section 6: Working conditions in current position

Section 7: Mobility and collaboration, broken down into:

International mobility

Interdisciplinary mobility

Intersectoral m

Collaboration

Section 8: Attractiveness of the European Research Area

Section 9 summarises the findings of these sections in relation to the policy

context.

In the Annexes more details are provided on the survey methodology and the

questionnaire. Also additional data and tables are included there (per chapter).

3 IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning

mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Extra-EU report (WP2). European Commission, DG Research and Innovation.

4 EU28 + 3 associated countries (Switzerland, Norway and Iceland).


October 2017 8

2. Existing insights on global mobility

2.1. Motives and effects of mobility

Previous studies have also addressed differences in the motives, working conditions and

career development across countries and between mobile and non-mobile researchers.

Motives for outward mobility

As research based on MORE2 data shows (Janger and Nowotny, 2016)5, the choice

between jobs in academia is generally more driven by factors relevant to scientific

productivity than by personal or non-science related factors, where productivity refers to

publication performance. Factors influencing scientific productivity can be, for instance,

the quality of collaboration partners (working with leading scientists will be more

beneficial for productivity) or working conditions including research funding and research

autonomy. While academic researchers are willing to trade off salary against superior

conditions for research, ceteris paribus salaries also matter. Issues such as quality of life

do not work as attractors when they are better, only as barriers when they are worse.

The OECD/UNESCO study on Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH 2009) shows that the

US is not only the country attracting major flows of researchers due to the quality of its

PhD programmes and working conditions for researchers - it is also the country in which

the highest median gross annual earnings are found.

While there are important common factors which drive mobility, there are important

differences depending on the origin and destination of researchers. This is likely to be

interrelated with the different working conditions across countries. The MORE1 and

MORE2 studies consistently reported that working conditions are typically seen as being

better outside the EU, and most notably in the US, especially concerning remuneration.

This was also confirmed by Veugelers and Van Bouwel (2015)6 which indicate that these

motivations are more strongly related to EU-US mobility than in the case of intra-EU

mobility. Very similar results were presented in the 2012 Researchers´ Report of the

European Commission7. However, quality of life is perceived as being better in Europe

than abroad.

Studies focusing on PhD candidates report results that go in a similar direction. Results of

the Global Science project indicate that the prestige of PhD programs, career progression

prospects and life-style all play an important role in deciding the location of PhD studies

(Stephan et al., 2015)8. These motives, however, are not always ranked equally for all

destination countries. Moving to the US to do a PhD is generally related to the prestige of

its programs and the prospects for career progression, but the negative perceptions of its

life-style discourage many to move to the US9.

Motives for return mobility

The OECD/UNESCO study on Careers of Doctorate Holders (CDH 2009) shows that return

mobility can be due to a large variety of motives, such as academic or job-related

5 Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683. 6 Veugelers, R., Van Bouwel, L. (2015). The effects of international mobility on European researchers:

comparing intra-EU and US mobility. Research in Higher Education, 56 (4), 360-377. 7 Researchers’ Report 2012, EC, DG Research and Innovation.

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/index.cfm/general/researchPolicies 8 Stephan, P., Franzoni, C., & Scellato, G. (2013). Choice of Country by the Foreign Born for PhD and

postdoctoral Study: A Sixteen-Country Perspective (No. w18809). National Bureau of Economic Research. 9 Stephan, P., Franzoni, C., & Scellato, G. (2013). Choice of Country by the Foreign Born for PhD and

Postdoctoral Study: A Sixteen-Country Perspective (No. w18809). National Bureau of Economic Research.


October 2017 9

reasons, or family and personal factors. Motives for this type of mobility were analysed

in-depth in the previous MORE1 and MORE2 studies. Similar trends were found in both

studies.

Effects of mobility

There is also some evidence on the positive effects of mobility. In the framework of the

Global Science project, Scellato et al. (2012)10 found out that mobile researchers tend to

collaborate with researchers from more countries and tend to be more successful in their

research collaboration than those that have never been mobile. The same authors even

indicate the existence of a “performance premium” for foreign-born researchers and

returnees (Franzoni et al., 2012)11. Other studies, however, nuance these claims. In a

study on the effects of mobility among Spanish researchers, Cañibano et al. (2008)12

found that while international mobility is related to easier access to international funding

and networking, the link between this type of mobility and publications or patenting

performance is not so strong. Other studies also stress that career paths also matter in

determining the effects of mobility: Lawson and Shibayama (2015)13 claimed that

Japanese bioscience professors who have been mobile were more likely to be promoted

sooner, but only if they already had permanent contracts; that is, that they do not

change employer.

2.2. ERA priorities

Mobility of researchers has been a key element of EU policies in recent decades. Since

the introduction of the concept of the European Research Area in 200014, efforts have

been made towards achieving a more efficient and effective public research system. Five

key priorities were put forward:

1. More effective national research systems;

2. Optimal transnational cooperation and competition;

3. An open labour market for researchers (facilitating mobility, supporting

training and ensuring attractive careers);

4. Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research;

5. Optimal circulation and transfer of scientific knowledge.

Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, Carlos Moedas, put forth the three

Os15 as the next chapter in the ERA and Innovation Union policy: Open Innovation, Open

Science and Open to the World. The aim is to foster innovation, knowledge transfer and

research and international collaboration.

In this context, the Global survey (Task 2 of the MORE3 study) on the mobility patterns,

career paths and working conditions of researchers currently working outside Europe will

shed light on the perceptions of four important groups:

10 Scellato, G., Franzoni, C., & Stephan, P. (2012). Mobile Scientists and International Networks, NBER

Working paper n.18613, December. 11 Franzoni,C., Scellato,G., & Stephan, P. (2012). The Mover's Advantage. Scientific Performance of Mobile

Academics. NBER Working paper n. 18577, November 2012. 12 Cañibano, C., Otamendi, J., & Andújar, I. (2008). Measuring and assessing researcher mobility from CV

analysis: the case of the Ramón y Cajal programme in Spain. Research Evaluation, 17(1), 17-31. 13 Lawson, C., & Shibayama, S. (2015). International research visits and careers: An analysis of bioscience

academics in Japan. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 690-710. 14 COM(2000) 6: Towards a European research area. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0006:FIN:en:PDF 15 Speech of 22 June 2015. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm


October 2017 10

EU researchers currently working outside the EU16;

Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past;

Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU;

Non-Europeans who have never worked abroad.

The results and insights of this Global survey will allow to better define and position the

strengths of the ERA as an optimal breeding ground for the development of research, as

compared to other (research) areas in the world. This survey therefore contributes to

shedding light on different dimensions of the ERA priorities:

More effective national research systems. The results of the survey provide insights

into the effectiveness of the European research area through the lenses of the

researchers currently working outside Europe17.

Optimal transnational cooperation and competition. The survey provides evidence

of the barriers and incentives to move to Europe for researchers coming from third

countries. As such, it can provide a sound basis for the development of joint actions

that can foster transnational cooperation.

An open labour market for researchers. The differences in recruitment and career

paths, patterns of intersectoral mobility or portability of grants between researchers

working in EU institutions (EU HE Survey) and those located in third countries help

analysis of the characteristics of EU institutions and HE systems in a global context.

Optimal circulation and transfer of scientific knowledge. Mobility and collaboration

are important pathways for accessing and transferring knowledge to other sectors,

so that both the scientific and the economic use of knowledge can be improved. In

this sense, knowing from a global perspective how researchers collaborate within

and across sectors, what their main patterns of mobility are and which effects can

be expected from that, will support European policy makers in the development of

evidence-based policy decisions. This survey therefore constitutes a good basis for

the fostering and deepening of those initiatives related to the three key dimensions

Open Science, Open Innovation and Open to the World.

2.3. Mobility programmes and flows

In the EU context, policy measures such as the EU’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions

programme or Euraxess, have been introduced over the years to promote the

international mobility of researchers. The main reason to foster geographic mobility lies

in the fact that it is related to more intense knowledge flows through international

collaboration and, as a consequence, increases scientific productivity which may in turn

affect economic competitiveness. These goals are not considered important only in the

EU: being able to compete in the global research arena is a source of concern and an

objective for many countries and regions, and not only among the most industrialised.

For instance, countries like Brazil and China have boosted their efforts on promoting

inward and outward mobility18 as have South Korea, India and Turkey19. The MORE3

Global survey will contribute to complementing the views and data gathered by previous

studies.

The OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for Growth

and Society provides a newly-developed indicator of the international mobility of scientific

authors. These data allow for analysing the annual inflows and outflows of scientific

16 EU28 + 3 associated countries. 17 No analysis at the country level is possible due to low number of responses in certain countries. Analyses

are conducted at the level of country-groups. 18 OECD, 2016. Researchers on the move: The impact of brain circulation. 19 GRL, GRDC Programmes of National Research Foundation of Korea in South Korea, UKIERI and CEFIPRA

Programmes in India and YABSIS, foreign researcher system in Turkey.


October 2017 11

authors according to the changes in the institutional affiliations of researchers´ scholarly

publication. The available country reports – Japan, Korea, and the United Kingdom -

indicate that the US is, unsurprisingly, the main receptor of net inflows from most of the

countries (OECD, 2015)20. In spite of the limitations of this type of indicator, such as only

tracing mobility linked to publications, it shows that it is not only the quantity of mobility

that matters, but also its quality. Countries are interested in attracting the best

researchers: according to OECD data, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Hong Kong

(China), and Chinese Taipei are measured by the number of citations, the most

successful countries in managing to attract better researchers than those who leave the

country in terms of their citation impact.

2.4. Researchers’ awareness of EU mobility initiatives

The results of existing studies point to the need to increase the awareness of the policy

measures that are already in place to enable mobility, either to facilitate return mobility

of talented researchers or to boost potential positive effects of mobility on scientific

productivity. Enabling mobility to escape ineffective national research systems should be

regarded as a temporary solution, with the first best solution addressing the

effectiveness of the research system (see ERA priority number one). The Mapping

University Mobility project (MAUNIMO 2010-2012)21 already stressed the need to achieve

a greater awareness among researchers of the tools and services that can help them be

mobile. Regarding EU policies, the MORE2 project found out that Euraxess platforms and

services were known by 25% of the EU researchers working outside the EU, but only by

9% of the non-European researchers who had worked previously in the EU. Marie Curie

Actions were known to 50% of the EU researchers abroad and to 33% of the non-EU

researchers. Awareness is therefore key to further improve the reach of these tools and

initiatives.

20 OECD, 2016. Researchers on the move: The impact of brain circulation. 21 http://www.eua.be/activities-services/projects/past-projects/learning-teaching/mapping-university-

mobility-of-staff-and-students.aspx.


October 2017 12

3. Conceptual framework and definitions

Within the context of these policy developments, the conceptual framework defines and

structures a set of overarching concepts that are then applied consistently in the four

different tasks of the MORE3 study (including the Global survey). It is as such a tool for

guidance in structuring and interpreting the findings in each of the tasks and integrating

them in the final report. The conceptual framework is also strongly based on the

framework used in the MORE2 study (2012) for reasons of consistency and

comparability22. The results of the Global survey in the report at hand are thus also

structured according to this framework. In the next section, we therefore introduce this

framework briefly.

The definitions of the mobility concepts applied throughout the MORE3 study further take

into account the existing standards or secondary sources so that comparability with other

studies and contexts is maximised. In the second section of this chapter, we repeat the

definitions of a number of key concepts (consistent across tasks of MORE3 and with

MORE2): researchers, fields of science and research career stages. Furthermore we

elaborate on the key concept of mobility and how it is adapted based on the findings of

MORE2. Finally, a summary is provided of the refinements made to a number of concepts

of career paths and working conditions, based on the identified evolutions in the policy

context since 2012.

3.1. Conceptual framework

Figure 1 shows the conceptual framework as it was developed for Task 1 of MORE3 – EU

HE survey. It is based on the conceptual framework of MORE2, the discussed definitions

in the Annex, and the identification of new topics from the literature review. The MORE

framework brings together the variables and indicators at three different levels: human

resources and working conditions relate to the system and organisation level, career

paths and mobility fit in the individual researcher perspective and the attractiveness of

the ERA corresponds to the system level.

In our conceptual framework, human resources are the starting point, as the stock of

human resources is the basis to define our population of interest. Career paths of

researchers can be seen as an important element of working conditions; both taken

together are important factors which influence the various forms of mobility, e.g. taking

the next career step may necessarily involve international mobility to gain access to

international networks, or bad working conditions drive researchers away to other

countries within the same sector or to other sectors within the same country. Working

conditions and career paths determine to a large extent the attractiveness of the

European Research Area for EU and non-EU researchers, whereas different forms of

mobility can inter alia be seen as indicators, which can be used for monitoring issues of

attractiveness.

For each of the concepts (in dark blue) and their dimensions (in light blue), a number of

key indicators are identified for data collection and analysis in (each of the tasks in)

MORE3 (see Figure 1). The main types of indicators are given in Figure 2. Each of these

are further elaborated and detailed in the analysis sections (sections 5 to 8). An

important remark is that this Global survey does not provide representative data at the

level of the countries covered. The sample was not set up to reflect the proportion of

22 IDEA Consult et al. (2013) Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns

and career paths of researchers. FINAL REPORT (deliverable 8).


October 2017 13

researchers currently working outside the EU within the overall population of researchers

currently working outside the EU. Therefore, the main focus of this task is on the ERA

attractiveness (section 8) and on the comparative perspective between working in the EU

and outside the EU.

We explain in the following sections the definitions of concepts used in the indicators as

well as the policy-driven developments (compared to 2012) that have an impact on the

definition, scope or interpretation of the indicators.

Figure 1: Final conceptual framework for the MORE3 study

Source: IDEA Consult based on MORE1, MORE2 and literature review

Figure 2: Framework for definition of indicators in the MORE3 study

Source: IDEA Consult based on MORE1, MORE2 and literature review


October 2017 14

3.2. Main definitions

For the MORE3 project, we build further on the definitions of MORE2 and make

suggestions for improvements where necessary. A detailed overview of the definitions of

researchers, career stages and fields of science (as developed in the Tasks 1 and 3 of the

MORE3 study), is provided below.

3.2.1. Researchers

The main definition of a researcher applied in the MORE1 and MORE2 surveys is also

used in the MORE3 study. A researcher is defined in accordance with the Frascati

manual23, identifying researchers as “professionals engaged in the conception or creation

of new knowledge, products, processes, methods and systems and also in the

management of the projects concerned”.

As with the MORE2 surveys and the EU HE survey in Task 1 of MORE3, we have included

the following self-selection paragraph in the introduction of the Global survey. This to

clearly define “researcher” to the respondents and allow them to self-select into this

category:

We specifically target “researchers” within this survey, including people:

carrying out research OR

supervising research OR

improving or developing new products/processes/services OR

supervising the improvement or development of new products/processes/

services.

If you consider yourself to fall into one or more of the above categories, we kindly

ask you to complete the questionnaire.

3.2.2. Field of Science

Fields of science (FOS) are defined according to the FOS classifications proposed by the

OECD in 200624:

FOS 1 (Natural Sciences)

FOS 2 (Engineering and technology)

FOS 3 (Medical Sciences)

FOS 4 (Agricultural Sciences)

FOS 5 (Social sciences)

FOS 6 (Humanities)

Similar as in MORE2 and MORE3 task 1, these six categories can be aggregated in three

categories:

NATURAL: Field 1 (Natural Sciences) and Field 2 (Engineering and Technology)

HEALTH: Field 3 (Medical and health sciences) and Field 4 (Agricultural and

veterinary sciences)

SOCIAL: Field 5 (Social Sciences) and Field 6 (Humanities and the Arts)

23 OECD (2002) Frascati Manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental

Development. OECD, Paris. 24 http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf


October 2017 15

3.2.3. Research career

The MORE3 study, as with its predecessors, takes the perspective of the individual

researcher within academic careers and applies the EC model for career stages. This Task

2 on the Global survey also includes individual researchers outside academics. The same

EC model for career stages is applied for these non-academic researchers. As such, it is

situated in this context in the individual agency perspective, defined by

competences/independence and leadership.

The choice to apply the career stage model defined in the European Commission’s

communication “Towards a European Framework for Research Careers” (European

Commission 2011, p. 2)25 is because, with its focus on competences and leadership, it

best fits the purpose of the study whilst allowing for a high degree of standardisation

across different related studies.

These four career stages are (more details are provided in annex 2):

R1: First Stage Researcher (up to the point of PhD),

R2: Recognised Researcher (PhD holders or equivalent who are not yet fully

independent);

R3: Established Researcher (researchers who have developed a level of

independence);

R4: Leading Researcher (researchers leading their research area or field).

3.2.4. Sectors

As indicated in the introduction, the Global survey does not solely focus on academic

researchers. Due to the nature of the sampling (partly targeted towards academic

researchers and an open web link available for all researchers), both academic and non-

academic researchers are able to participate in the survey. The following types of

organisations are considered as sectors for the purposes of this study:

University or higher education institutions

Public or government sector (e.g. research performing organisation)

Private, not-for-profit sector (e.g. research foundation, NGO)

Private industry: large firm

Private industry: SME or start-up

3.2.5. Mobility

Researcher “mobility” refers to the movements researchers make during their career,

which can be of varying lengths, with different goals, with different types of destinations

and coming from different types of originating countries.

25 http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Towards_a_European_Framework_for_

Research_Careers_final.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Towards_a_European_Framework_for_%20Research_Careers_final.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/euraxess/pdf/research_policies/Towards_a_European_Framework_for_%20Research_Careers_final.pdf


October 2017 16

In MORE3 the definitions of mobility are strongly based on those applied in MORE2 for

reasons of consistency. However, as new concepts of researcher mobility developed, and

policies towards mobility and the evaluation of researchers’ achievements had to be

revisited26, the definitions for this study also needed improvement and updating. In the

following sections, we first resume the main definitions of (different types of) mobility and

the link with motives for mobility (escape, expected and exchange mobility).

Mobility definitions

According to the expert group on the research profession27 at least four types of mobility

can be identified:

Geographical or international mobility;

Intersectoral mobility;

Virtual mobility (based on tangible cross-border research collaboration);

Mobility related to change of topics or disciplines.

In MORE1, the analysis mainly focused on “geographical” and “sectoral mobility”. As

mobility could no longer be seen only in physical and geographical/international terms,

“virtual mobility” was included for the first time in the MORE2 study. Mobility related to

change of topics or disciplines was not explicitly included in the MORE2 study but is now

elaborated in MORE3 so that this current study covers all four types of mobility. In the

Global survey (Task 2) of the MORE3 study, the focus is on geographical mobility.

Intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility are touched upon, and virtual mobility is not

surveyed.

The definitions of types of mobility are based on those formulated in MORE2. In Table 1,

they are structured along the dimensions of type of mobility, phase in which mobility

takes place, duration and purpose of mobility. The definitions on geographical or

international mobility28, intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility in this table are

analysed in this report in the indicated sections.

26 New concepts of researcher mobility – a comprehensive approach including combined/part-time positions.

Science Policy Briefing, ESF, April 2013. 27 “Excellence, Equality and Entrepreneurialism building sustainable research careers in the European Research

Area” (2012), by the Expert Group on the Research Profession. 28 In the Global survey, only PhD degree mobility is included.


October 2017 17

Table 1: Definitions of mobility forms analysed in MORE329

PhD mobility Post-PhD mobility

Mobility of researchers

enrolled in a PhD programme during their R1 career stage30

Mobility in any of the

following research career stages and, even though

the terminology selected for simplicity suggests otherwise, regardless of whether or not the researcher has obtained a PhD.

Geographical or

international mobility

Moving to

another country

PhD degree mobility:

Mobility with the purpose of obtaining the PhD in another country

>3 month

mobility: Mobility with duration of 3

months or more

Employer

mobility: Mobility including a

change of employer

>3 month mobility during PhD:

Mobility of three months or

more during the PhD while still obtaining the PhD in the home country

Mobility

without employer change

PhD students´ non-mobility:

Never been PhD degree or

during PhD mobile to another country

Non-mobility:

never been mobile to another country for >3 months at a time

<3 month mobility:

Mobility with duration of less than 3 months

Intersectoral

mobility

Moving to another sector, e.g. from a higher education institution to a

private firm


Having switched to another (sub)field during the academic research career31

Virtual mobility

The use of web-based or virtual technology to collaborate internationally - based on tangible cross-border research collaboration

Source: IDEA Consult

29 Short-term (<3 months) mobility among PhD students (R1) is out of the scope of the MORE3 study. It is

hence not included in this survey. 30 It is also possible that researchers who are pursuing a PhD are not enrolled in a PhD programme. 31 Which is to be distinguished from interdisciplinary research as such.


October 2017 18

Motives: escape, expected and exchange mobility

In MORE2, a number of results indicated that international mobility can be driven by

push factors more than by pull factors. In some cases the effects of mobility were even

negative. To explore the explanations for these dynamics and outcomes in more detail,

we have analysed international mobility from three different perspectives: escape

mobility, expected mobility and exchange mobility.

Escape mobility is the case where a researcher is ‘pushed’ away from his or her

environment because of lack of funding, positions, etc. – if they want to pursue a career

as a researcher, they have to change countries. The hypothesis is that this kind of forced

mobility may show a different pattern of effects. Compared to the other types of mobility,

the negative effects of escape mobility might be more pronounced, such as the loss of

network at home or a deterioration of working conditions.

As a second perspective, we will also ask about situations where mobility may be

‘natural’ as a step in a research career, though not required. This is referred to as

‘expected mobility’ and is situated in-between the two concepts of escape and exchange

mobility. Moreover, this information can point to important differences between

disciplines, related to the discussion on effects of mobility per discipline.

Finally, exchange mobility refers to the situation where a researcher chooses to move

(positive motivation, self-chosen) with the aim of exchanging knowledge and work in an

international network, or with the aim to use international mobility as a way to boost

one’s career. The latter is expected to have more positive effects in terms of expanding a

researcher’s network and improving career progression opportunities. The latter also

closely relates to the concept of Open Science, where global cooperation becomes

increasingly important.

Policy-driven developments in concepts of career paths and working conditions

Recent developments in the R&D policy context in Europe have necessitated the revision

of certain concepts about career paths and working conditions:

Combined/part-time researcher positions;

Dual careers/restart of careers;

Measurement of researchers’ achievements;

Open Innovation, Open Science, Openness to the World;

The concepts of combined/part-time researcher positions, dual careers or career restarts,

the measurement of researchers’ achievements and open science in the 3Os framework

(Open Science, Open Innovation, Open to the world)32 are discussed in more detail in

annex 3. In the development of the questionnaire for the MORE3 Global survey, we have

taken into account each of these concepts to the extent relevant and complementary to

what is already being monitored in other studies (such as the DG EAC study “Research

Careers in Europe”, cf. infra). This also means that these concepts are new when

compared to MORE2 and analysed for the first time in this context.

32 Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, Carlos Moedas, has put forth the three O’s as a next

chapter in the ERA and Innovation Union policy: Open Innovation, Open Science and Open to the World. Each of these are regarded as strategic priorities to foster research and innovation in Europe for the years to come. Speech of 22 June 2015. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World - a vision for Europe. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. May 2016.

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-15-5243_en.htm


October 2017 19

3.2.6. Target groups based on citizenship and mobility patterns

The target population of the Global survey consists of researchers currently working

outside the EU. The following target groups are distinguished (in-line with the analysis in

MORE233):

TG1: EU researchers34 currently working outside the EU;

EU researchers, by citizenship, who are currently mobile35 (and thus working)

outside the EU (i.e. the last international long-term move was outside the EU

and is still ongoing).

TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past;

Non-EU researchers, by citizenship, who have worked in the EU in the past 10

years but have returned or moved to another place outside the EU afterwards

(i.e. there was an international move to the EU in the past which is no longer

ongoing).

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU;

Non-EU researchers, by citizenship, who have not worked in the EU in the

past 10 years but who have worked in other non-EU countries than their

country of citizenship.

TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad;

Non-EU researchers, by citizenship, who have not undertaken international

long term mobility in the past 10 years (nor to an EU country, nor to another

non-EU country).

It is important to note that EU and non-EU researchers currently working in the EU have

been studied through another survey: the MORE3 HE Survey.

33 IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning mobility

patterns and career paths of researchers, Extra-EU report (WP2). European Commission, DG Research and Innovation.

34 EU28 + 3 associated countries (Switzerland, Norway and Iceland). 35 With mobility defined as “international mobility experience as a researcher after gaining their highest

education qualifications (PhD or other)”.


October 2017 20

4. Methodology

This section gives an overview of the sampling and country focus followed by the

distribution strategy of the Global survey. Subsequently the survey implementation,

response rate and sample composition are discussed.

4.1. Sampling strategy and country focus

The sampling approach for the Global survey is characterised as ‘convenience’ sampling

(similar to the MORE2 Extra-EU survey36). A multichannel approach was applied:

Via a web-based contact collection approach, email addresses of researchers

currently working outside the EU were obtained. These researchers were contacted

via email, including a personalised link to the online survey (more detailed

information is provided in section 4.2);

Via the Euraxess Links (Officers), email addresses of researchers were obtained.

These researchers were contacted via email, including a personalised link to the

online survey;

Via an open communication strategy, a non-personalised link to the online survey

was distributed on the MORE3 website, EC websites and via intermediary

organisations.

The Global survey is directed towards researchers currently working outside the EU; the

survey is global in its outlook. A special emphasis was put on the (larger) countries that

have an S&T agreement with the EU, on some countries associated to H2020 such as

Turkey and Israel and on the ASEAN countries. Below an overview is provided of these

countries. Researchers who are currently working in countries that are not included in

this list were not excluded from the survey, but they were not specifically targeted by the

communication strategy.

(Large) countries with an S&T agreement37: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,

Chile, China, Colombia, India, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, (Russia), South Africa,

(South Korea), United States;

ASEAN: Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand;

Other associated countries with H2020 (FP7): Turkey and Israel.

Box 1: Limitations of the sampling and strategy methodology

As indicated, this Global survey does not provide representative data at the level of the

countries covered. As there are no weights applied, this means that the dataset does not

provide representative data on the number of researchers and their mobility patterns

from and to specific countries. This sample does not reflect the proportion of researchers

currently working outside the EU within the overall population of researchers currently

working outside the EU. Therefore, results need to be interpreted with care and no

generalisations/extrapolations can be made in this regard.


and career paths of researchers. EXTRA-EU report. 37 http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?pg=countries

http://ec.europa.eu/research/iscp/index.cfm?pg=countries


October 2017 21

4.2. Distribution strategy

Different communication channels were used in order to reach out to as many

researchers outside the EU as possible. The multi-channel strategy includes a direct

contact approach and an indirect contact approach:

In the direct contact approach, researchers received a personalised email with a

link to the Global survey.

In the indirect contact approach, a link to the Global survey was included on the

website of MORE3 and the EC. Intermediary organisations were contacted with the

request to distribute the link to the Global survey via their own communication

channels (website, newsletter, social media etc.).

Below, more details are provided on these different contacting and communication

approaches (summary overview in Table 2).

Table 2: Overview table communication strategy

Communication strategy Panel versus non-panel Focus

Targeted email approach

towards researchers

(contacts obtained via web-

based approach)

“panel” responses”: the

researchers received an

email including a

personalised link to the

Global survey.

Focus on HE researchers.

Targeted email approach

towards researchers

(contacts obtained via

Euraxess Links officers)

“panel” responses”: the

researchers received an

email including a

personalised link to the

Global survey.

No focus on HE researchers.

Euraxess is open to HE and

non-HE researchers, but

there is a high bias towards

HE researchers.

Communication via websites,

intermediary organisations,

etc.

“non-panel response”:

there was a non-

personalised open link to

the Global survey.

No focus on HE researchers.

Due to the open approach,

it is possible that non-HE

researchers responded to

the survey. Source: The consortium

Email to researchers using the web-based contact collection approach

Email addresses of HE researchers (working outside Europe) were collected using a web-

based contact collection approach (similar to MORE2):

The first step of the method is to collect a large sample of the URLs of academics’

home pages. This is achieved through Bing advanced site-specific searches of a list

of thousands university websites for keywords like “home page”, “homepage”, “CV”

or “Curriculum Vitae”. The searches are conducted twice, once for normal HTML

pages and once for PDF files, since it is common to post CVs online in PDF format.

These searches can be targeted at academics with particular profiles by adding

appropriate keywords. For example, to target academics that have moved to the

US, the searches would be run with names of prominent US universities as

additional keywords. This method is imperfect as it can match conferences listed in

CVs instead of previous employment histories but in previous studies it had a

reasonable success rate.

The second step is to automatically download all the home pages and CVs identified

from the searches and to automatically extract email addresses from them. The

limitation of this step is that some academics omit or obscure their email address,

but the method still gives reasonable results.


October 2017 22

In MORE2, the main focus of this approach was on US researchers. The aim of the

MORE3 study is broader and therefore the strategy entailed a broader outreach (see also

section 4.1).

Email to researchers via Euraxess Links officers

Euraxess Links is a networking tool for the community of European Researchers abroad38.

As a part of the networking purpose, it also focuses on disseminating information and

fostering collaboration with researchers in Europe and helping the expatriate researchers

to return to Europe39. Euraxess Links was launched in 2006 in the US. Now there are

Euraxess links officers in North America, Japan, China, India, ASEAN (Singapore,

Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand) and Brazil.

Via the Euraxess Links officers, the contact details (email) of researchers who are

connected with Euraxess Links countries were obtained and the researchers received an

email invitation to participate to the survey.

Open communication strategy

Aside from contacting researchers directly via email including a personalised weblink,

there was also an “open” weblink to the online survey. This allowed all those interested

to participate in the survey. A drawback of the approach is that we did not have control

over who participates to the study and we were not able to address/remind them

personally. It was thus not possible to support or steer the response rate for specific

countries through this channel. In addition, a certain self-selection bias is possible:

researchers that participated in the study might present some characteristics that

distinguish them from the general population. This type of bias is, however, difficult to

measure in the absence of population data (the population of researchers in the world).

There are different channels through which the open weblink was distributed:

A dedicated website on the MORE3 project with information on the context and set-

up of the study was developed and launched as part of the first phase of the

MORE3 project: http://www.more3.eu. The link to the online Global survey was

placed visibly on the main page of the website so that all website visitors could

easily access the survey. In addition, if researchers had questions on the survey or

inquired more information on the project they could contact the project team via

the designated email address: [email protected].

The open weblink has been communicated via the EC’s own communication

channels, more specifically Euraxess Worldwide and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie

website.

Aiming at a broad outreach, the online Global survey link was disseminated as

widely as possible. Therefore relevant intermediary organisations were asked to

distribute the link.

Euraxess Worldwide;

National research funding agencies;

The EU centres of excellence around the world.

Snowballing

In addition to the different approaches explained above, also “snowballing” was used as a

source to increase the survey sample. All respondents to the survey had the opportunity

to forward the survey link to other researchers (these are then included in the non-panel

responses).

http://www.more3.eu/

mailto:[email protected]


October 2017 23

4.3. Survey implementation and response

4.3.1. Survey implementation

The survey was launched on the 14th of March 2017 and was closed on the 5th of July

2017. The collected email addresses were included in the online survey tool in different

batches spread over the period of the survey. The survey was composed of 89 questions

and was available in English. The average time needed to complete the survey was 19

minutes and 44 seconds. More information is provided in Annex 4.

4.3.2. Response

The entire panel size (collected email addresses) consists of 305,128 people identified by

the aforementioned sampling method:

8.3% of the emails bounced;

0.6% of the emails were refused;

12.4% opened the invitation email.

The survey has a total response of 2,876 respondents of which 2,659 were obtained from

the panel and 217 from the non-panel approach.

Table 3: Survey response

Total Panel Non-panel

Invited 305,128

Answered 2,876 2,659 217

Completed 1,940 1,849 91

Incomplete 461 411 50

Not part of the target population 475 399 76

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017)

A number of responses came from researchers currently working in Europe or from

people who did not consider themselves to be researchers (475 respondents in total).

These responses were outside of the scope of this study and were thus not included in

the analysis.

4.3.3. Sample composition

Researchers were ex-post classified in four subgroups based on the information provided

in the questionnaire. An overview of the number of responses by researcher/target group

is provided in Table 4 below.

213 responses were obtained from EU researchers who have been mobile more than 10

years ago or who have not been mobile. To remain focused on the topics of mobility and

career paths in the past ten years, these responses were not considered for further

analysis (this is also consistent with the approach of the MORE2 Extra-EU survey and the

MORE3 EU HE survey).


October 2017 24

Table 4: Survey response rate per target group (completed responses)

Target groups

Who were mobile for

more than 3 months in

the past ten

years

Who were mobile for

more than 3 months but more than

10 years ago

Who have never been

mobile

Total (n)

Share (%)

TG1: EU researchers currently working abroad

417 (81) (132)* 630 32.5%

TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad in the EU in the last ten years

263 263 13.6%

TG3: Non-EU researchers who

have worked abroad but not in the EU

178 178 10%

TG4: Non-EU

researchers who have never worked abroad

211 658 869 44.8%

Total 858 292 790 1,940

Responses outside the scope

213 (81+132)

Total sample 1,727


*Note: There were 132 researchers currently working abroad who have never been mobile that have an EU nationality. These cases can refer to very diverse circumstances. People with double citizenship (EU and non-EU) but who have never been to the EU. People who moved to another country to do their Master degree are not considered mobile in this study. People who were born outside Europe or that moved as a child but retained EU nationality would also be included in this

group. Due to the heterogeneity of this group, these researchers are not taken into account for the analysis.

In the sample of the MORE3 Global survey, the researchers were asked to indicate their

country of citizenship, residence, current employment and country where they obtained

or will obtain their PhD. Table 5 provides an overview of the overlap between the

different reference countries. This percentage of overlap is high between the different

countries; specifically, the overlap between country of current employment and country

of residence (98%) is high. Therefore, we focus the analysis on country of current

employment, country of citizenship and country of PhD (consistent with the MORE3 EU

HE survey).

For the analysis of the responses, countries are often clustered into 5 country groups by

country of current employment of the researchers: 1) non-EU OECD (including the US),

2) Anglo-Saxon countries (including the US), 3) the US separately, 4) the BRICS

countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and 5) other non-EU and non-

OECD countries (tables in annex 5 for more detail). A more precise comparison (i.e. by

countries) is not possible for most countries given the too low observation numbers.


October 2017 25

Table 5: Overlap between reference countries in the MORE3 Global survey

Country of citizenship

Country of residence

Country of current

employment

Country of PhD

(n = 1,727) (n = 1,727) (n = 1,727) (n = 1,615)40

Country of citizenship41 - 73.9% 73.1% 70%

Country of residence 73.9% - 97.6% 58.1%

Country of current

employment 73.1% 97.6% - 57.8%

Country of PhD42 70% 58.1% 57.8% -


An overview of country of citizenship per target group is provided in Error! Not a valid

bookmark self-reference.. The respondents of the Global survey consist of 417 EU

citizens and 1,310 non-EU citizens. The majority of responses were obtained from

researchers originating from Anglo-Saxon countries.

Table 6: Distribution of respondents by countries of citizenship and target groups

Country of current

citizenship

European researchers

currently working

outside the

EU

Non-European

researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past

Non-European

researchers who have worked

abroad, but not in the EU

Non-European


never worked abroad

Total

Total

417 263 178 869 1,727

European citizenship

417 0 0 0 417

Austria 14 0 0 0 14

Belgium 19 0 0 0 19

Bulgaria 2 0 0 0 2

Cyprus 2 0 0 0 2

Czech Republic 1 0 0 0 1

Denmark 4 0 0 0 4

Finland 2 0 0 0 2

France 52 0 0 0 52

Germany 55 0 0 0 55

Greece 11 0 0 0 11

Hungary 2 0 0 0 2

Iceland 1 0 0 0 1

Ireland 15 0 0 0 15

Italy 55 0 0 0 55

Malta 1 0 0 0 1

Netherlands 23 0 0 0 23

40 112 respondents indicated that they did not obtain a PhD or that they are currently not working on a PhD. 41 Double citizenship is possible (195 respondents indicated that they have dual citizenship). 42 It is possible to obtain a joint degree officially issued by two institutions located in two different countries.

As such, two countries of PhD are possible.


October 2017 26

Norway 3 0 0 0 3

Poland 13 0 0 0 13

Portugal 11 0 0 0 11

Romania 5 0 0 0 5

Slovakia 2 0 0 0 2

Slovenia 1 0 0 0 1

Spain 34 0 0 0 34

Sweden 2 0 0 0 2

Switzerland 13 0 0 0 13

United Kingdom 74 0 0 0 74

Non-European citizenship

0 263 178 869 1,310

Argentina 0 8 7 19 34

Australia 0 40 18 128 186

Brazil 0 27 16 66 109

Canada 0 40 21 114 175

Chile 0 7 9 30 46

China 0 8 3 11 22

Colombia 0 18 7 49 74

India 0 14 2 28 44

Indonesia 0 3 3 3 9

Israel 0 6 9 12 27

Japan 0 5 1 11 17

Malaysia 0 0 1 6 7

Mexico 0 13 7 32 52

New Zealand 0 20 11 47 78

Russia 0 8 5 42 55

Singapore 0 0 2 2 4

South Africa 0 6 7 42 55

South Korea 0 0 3 5 8

Thailand 0 3 0 8 11

Turkey 0 8 7 39 54

United States 0 14 26 110 150

Other 0 15 13 65 93


A more detailed overview of the respondents per country of current employment and

target group is provided in Table 7. The majority of responses were obtained from

researchers currently working in Australia (17%), the United States (14%) and Canada

(13%).


October 2017 27

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by country of current employment and target

group

Country of current

employment

European researchers

currently working

outside the EU

Non-European researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past

Non-European


worked abroad, but

not in the EU

Non-European


never worked abroad

Total

Argentina 4 7 8 19 38

Australia 94 42 26 135 297

Brazil 13 27 14 65 119

Canada 48 34 26 114 222

Chile 12 8 8 30 58

China 11 9 2 8 30

Colombia 7 20 6 48 81

India 3 8 1 19 31

Israel 8 7 9 15 39

Japan 48 7 3 11 69

Mexico 3 13 10 35 61

New Zealand 44 25 14 61 144

Russia 2 6 5 40 53

South Africa 11 9 14 53 87

Turkey 1 8 4 39 52

United States 91 17 15 113 236

Other 17 16 13 64 110

Total 417 263 178 869 1,727



October 2017 28

Box 2: Comparison with MORE2 Extra-EU survey

For Task 1 of the study, the MORE3 EU HE report, a comparison was made between the

results of the MORE2 EU HE survey and the MORE3 EU HE survey. This was possible as

the results of both surveys are based on a representative sample of researchers currently

working in the EU.

Such a comparison between the two surveys is not possible for the Global survey,

primarily because this survey is not based on a representative sample of researchers

currently working outside the EU. In addition, the scope of the MORE3 Global survey is

much broader than it was in MORE2. While in the MORE2 extra-EU survey the main focus

was on US researchers, the scope now is broadened with (large) countries with which the

EU has an S&T agreement, ASEAN countries, as well as other Associated Countries with

H2020 and FP7. A comparison of the geographical spread in the MORE2 and MORE3

Global survey is provided in the table below.

Table 8: Comparison MORE2 and MORE3 response per country of current employment

MORE2 Extra-EU survey

Response by country of current

employment

(n=4,090)

MORE3 Global survey

Response by country of current

employment

(n=1,727)

United States 55.3% Australia 17.2%

Australia 10.9% United States 13.7%

Turkey 6.7% Canada 12.9%

Brazil 3.6% New Zealand 8.3%

Israel 2.3% Brazil 6.9%

Russia 1.6% South Africa 5.0%

Mexico 1.4% Colombia 4.7%

Canada 1.3% Japan 4.0%

India 1.3% Mexico 3.5%

Japan 1.2% Chile 3.4%

Croatia 1.2% Russia 3.1%

Other countries 13.3% Turkey 3.0%

Israel 2.3%

Argentina 2.2%

India 1.8%

China 1.7%

Other countries 6.4%

Source: MORE2 Extra-EU survey (2013) and MORE3 Global survey (2017)


October 2017 29

5. Characteristics of researchers and career paths

As in the MORE3 EU HE survey, this chapter follows a sequential structure with respect to

researchers’ characteristics and careers, with however less detail due to the more limited

nature of the data gained at a global scale. First, this section presents the distribution of

the main sociodemographic variables that are used in the different analyses presented in

this report – composition of the target groups, career stage, field of science and gender.

In addition to this main information, detailed information about the dual positions of the

respondents to the survey is provided.

Second, we continue with the analysis of PhD studies as the main point of entry into

academic research careers. The quality and content of PhD studies are very relevant for

research performance, attractiveness for foreign students and training in broader skills

which open up labour market options for researchers. 80% of researchers in the sample

have obtained a PhD and a further 14% are enrolled in PhD studies, allowing for a more

detailed analysis of quality and content of PhD studies.

Third, another important factor in a researcher’s career is recruitment, the design of

which determines whether those with better training and future potential get the jobs.

Thus, one central task in this section is to evaluate whether researchers perceive their

recruitment process as transparent, fair and merit based. Questions on recruitment

conditions and which factors play a role in recruitment are asked and analysed.

Recruitment conditions might play a role in mobility decisions and career planning. In

order to identify any differences in the perceived recruitment process, a distinction is

made between various country groups.

Fourth, an analysis of career stages in relation to recruitment conditions is made together

with a description of how career progression takes place. Researchers’ perception of

whether career paths are clear and transparent, and of whether career progression is

based on merit is analysed. Moreover, researchers’ perception of skills that are the

driving factors to work one’s way up are examined.

As these sections will show, these factors determine to a certain extent the ability and

predisposition of researchers to be internationally, intersectorally and interdisciplinary

mobile. Therefore, this overview allows for a better understanding and contextualisation

of the findings presented in the more detailed sections of this report.

Box 3: Main research questions on career paths

PhD studies

How are PhD studies structured (traditional master-apprenticeship studies vs.

supervisory committees and doctoral schools)?

What are the main skills focused on in PhD studies?

Recruitment

Do researchers perceive their recruitment process as transparent, fair and

merit-based?

Which factors play a role in recruitment?

Career progression

Do researchers perceive their career progression process as clear,

transparent, and merit-based?

Which factors play a role in career progression?

How confident are researchers about their future prospects for their research

careers?


October 2017 30

5.1. Profile characteristics

5.1.1. Sociodemographic information

Analogous to the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global survey includes questions

referring to the background of the responding researchers. This section provides

information about these sociodemographic characteristics of the individuals that

responded to the survey, like age, gender, marital status, countries of residence and

citizenship. In addition, background information on the current employment

characteristics of the researchers regarding their main field of research (FOS) and their

career stage are provided. In what follows, we present an overview of the key

sociodemographic characteristics in the next paragraphs (and in Table 9). The results for

each sociodemographic variable are then described in more detail.

The distribution of these main sociodemographic variables of researchers currently

working outside the EU are presented across the following four important target groups

of this report.

TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU

TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU

TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad

The attribution of researchers into these subgroups is based on their long-term mobility

pattern and citizenship43. Together TG1 and TG2 constitute 39% of the sample (Table 9).

About half of the responses come from non-EU researchers who have never worked

abroad (TG4). Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3) add

up to a smaller part of the sample (10%).

Of the total sample of researchers currently working outside the EU, female researchers

account for 40% of the responses. The average age of all respondents is 45.6 years, the

majority is living together with a partner.

According to the self-classification of respondents in terms of field of science, nearly one-

third works in social sciences, one-fifth in natural sciences and 18% in engineering and

technology. Fewer researchers work in medical sciences, humanities and agricultural

sciences. Researchers were also asked to select their current career stage44, the largest

share in the sample are established researchers (R3: 39%), followed by leading

researchers (R4: 24%). The percentage of recognised and first stage researchers is lower

(R2: 21%; R1: 15%).

Due to the sampling method - based on "convenience sampling" in the absence of a

reliable sampling framework45 - it is not possible to judge whether the sample is truly

43 For more details on the four subgroups (TG1 – TG4) see section 3.2.6 “Target groups based on

citizenship and mobility patterns” and section 4.3.3 "Sample composition",

An overview of country of citizenship per target group is provided in Error! Not a valid

bookmark self-reference.. The respondents of the Global survey consist of 417 EU

citizens and 1,310 non-EU citizens. The majority of responses were obtained from

researchers originating from Anglo-Saxon countries.

Table 6. 44 For more details on the definition of the four career stages see section 3.2.3. 45 A web-based method was used to collect a preferably large sample, and responses were obtained by

snowballing. For an overview of the sampling approach see section 4 and annex 4.


October 2017 31

representative or not46. What can be said is that these are the researchers who could be

reached through the channels used.

Table 9: Sociodemographic information of researchers currently working outside the EU

Characteristics of researchers currently working outside the EU

All researchers (n=1,727)

Per target group Per gender Per FOS Per current career stage

2017 TG1: 24.1% F: 39.8% AGR: 3.8% R1: 15%

(n=1,727) TG2: 15.2% M: 60.2% ENG: 18.4% R2: 21.5%

TG3: 10.3%

HUM: 10.1% R3: 39.1%

TG4: 50.3%

MED: 14.8% R4: 24.4%

NAT: 20.4%

SOC: 32.5%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 2: “What is your gender” and question 8: “What is your main field of

research in your current position?" and question 10: “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?”

Researchers were asked to indicate their country of residence, current employment and

citizenship.

Country of residence: Among the 53 countries of residence named by all respondents

of the sample, Australia, the United States and Canada are the ones most frequently

named, followed by New Zealand and Brazil (see Figure 111 in annex 6). Within the

group of EU researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1) the most favoured

countries of residence are Australia (94) and the United States (79), followed by Japan,

Canada (both: 48) and New Zealand (43).

Country of current employment: Among the 48 country of current employment

indicated by all respondents of the sample, Australia, the United States and Canada are

the ones most frequently named, followed by New Zealand and Brazil (see Table 7 in

section 4.3.3). As indicated in section 4.3.3, the percentage of overlap is high between

the country of current employment and country of residence (98%). Therefore we focus

the analysis on country of current employment and not on country of residence.

Country of citizenship: Among the 81 countries of citizenship47 named by all

respondents of the sample, again Australia, Canada and the United States, followed by

Brazil and New Zealand are those most frequently named (see Figure 112 in annex 6).

Not surprisingly, within the group of EU researchers currently working outside the EU

(TG1), many come from the largest countries: United Kingdom (74), Germany (55), Italy

(55), France (52) and Spain (34). The analysis of the non-EU respondents who were

mobile, but not to the EU (TG3) shows again that the majority originates from the five

above-mentioned countries that dominate the total sample (Australia, Brazil, Canada,

46 There are no global benchmark data available which would allow one to judge the representativity of the

sample. 47 195 indicated that they have a double citizenship.


October 2017 32

New Zealand and the United States). Among the target group TG2 (Non-EU researchers

who have worked in the EU in the past) the top 6 countries of citizenship are Australia

and Canada, Brazil, New Zealand, Colombia and the United States.

Due to the sampling strategy of this work48 the distribution cannot be considered

representative of the real proportions of the populations outside the EU.

Age structure: On average, researchers that participated in the MORE3 Global survey

are 46 years old. One-fifth of the total sample of researchers currently working outside

the EU is younger than 35, and less than one-tenth is older than 64. The largest age

group (30%) is that comprised of researchers between 35 and 44 years old, followed by

the 45 - 54 year olds (25%).

Figure 3 shows that the age distribution differs across the target groups. The share of

young researchers (less than 35) is much higher among the subgroup of EU researchers

currently working outside the EU (T1: 28%), compared to the other three target groups.

The opposite is the case for researchers older than 64 (TG1: 11%) or the group of 55 –

64 years old (TG1: 3%). In the group of non-mobile non-EU researchers (TG4) nearly

one third (30%) is older than 54 (versus 14 in TG1), and more than half of the

researchers (57%) are older than 44 years, whereas in the subgroup of EU researchers

currently working outside the EU (TG1) researchers older than 45 sum up to a share of

just 36%. The different age distribution is also reflected in the average age by target

group. Within the group of EU researchers currently working abroad, the average age of

42 years is clearly below the other target groups (both TG2 and TG3: 46 years, T4: 47

years). To a certain extent, the lower average age in TG1 might be due to the fact that

researchers in TG1 are only required to be mobile at the point of taking the survey,

whereas researchers in TG2 were mobile in the past and then moved back outside the

EU, so they were mobile at least twice.

48 For details see section 4 on the “Methodology”.


October 2017 33

Figure 3: Age structure and target group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869)

- Based on question 3: “What is your year of birth”

Gender: About 40% of all researchers in the sample currently working outside the EU

are female. Figure 4 gives an overview of the distribution by gender over the four target

groups. Woman are less represented in the group of non-EU researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past (34% in TG2 as compared to the average share of 40%).

One possible explanation is that TG2 consist of a larger group of researchers in

engineering and technology (see later in Figure 7) where the share of female researchers

is lower (Figure 8). Among the non-mobile researchers (TG4), female researchers

account for 42%, which is above the average and clearly above TG2. Overall, the share

of female researchers is slightly lower in the group of mobile researchers than in the

groups of non-mobile researchers.

20.5

29.9

25.1

16.7

7.8

27.6

36.9

21.8

10.6

3.1

19.8

30.8

26.2

14.8

8.4

15.2

37.1

27.5

13.5

6.7

18.4

24.7

25.9

20.8

10.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

<35 35-44

45-54 55-64

65+


October 2017 34

Figure 4: Female representation across target groups


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417)


- Based on question 2: “What is your gender”

Looking at the same information the other way round (Figure 113 in annex 6) confirms

the differences in terms of gender composition across the four target groups. Among all

female researchers currently working outside the EU, the subgroups of non-EU women

who have worked in the EU in the past is clearly smaller (TG2: 13%) than among all

male researchers (TG2: 17%). The opposite is the case for the non-mobile target group.

No large differences between female and male researchers can be seen for the share of

the two target groups T1 and T3. Male researchers in the sample are therefore slightly

more mobile, and more of them have worked in the EU in the past compared to the

sample of female researchers currently working outside the EU.

Family composition: Researchers were asked to indicate their marital status. 5%

preferred not to disclose this information. Just 22% are living as a single household (5%

as a single with children), whereas the majority (73%) is living with a partner.

In the total sample of all researchers who did answer the questions referring to their

marital status, again more than one-fifth are living as singletons. In the remaining group

of couples, nearly two-thirds have children. In terms of family status, it seems that EU

researchers working outside the EU (TG1) less often have children (either as a couple or

as a single) compared to non-EU researchers (Figure 5).

39.8 39.333.8

37.642.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



October 2017 35

Figure 5: Marital status and target group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,637) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=399) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=247)

- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=171) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=820) - Respondents who preferred not to disclosure their marital status were excluded in this figure. - Based on question 6: “What is your current status”

Partner also a researcher: Among all of those who indicated that they have a partner

and additionally disclosed the information on whether their partner works as a

researcher, 29% have a researcher as partner. In the two intercontinentally mobile

target groups T1 and T2, the share of researchers living together with a researcher as a

partner (T1: 34%, T2: 41%) is clearly higher than for the non-mobile target group

(T4:24%).

50.5

26.2

4.8

18.5

45.4

33.6

1.5

19.5

49.0

23.9

5.3

21.9

53.8

27.5

7.0

11.7

52.7

23.0

5.9

18.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


In a couple with children In a couple without children

Single with chi ldren Single without chi ldren


October 2017 36

Figure 6: Partner status by target group



- Only researcher who indicated, that there are in a couple with or without children - Based on question 7: “Is your partner also working as a researcher?”

Field of science: As already mentioned, the MORE3 Global survey asked all respondents

to self-select their field of science from a list of six fields proposed by the OECD (for

details see section 3.2.2). Figure 7 shows the overall distribution of respondents across

these fields in the first bar, the largest share of respondents corresponds to the Social

Sciences (32%), the smallest to Agricultural Sciences (4%). Within the group of EU

researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1), Natural Sciences and Medical

Sciences have a prominent weight, compared to the average. Whereas in the group of

non-EU researcher mobile to the EU in the past (TG2), Engineering and Technology

Sciences gains a higher share than in the total sample, Social Sciences are more

dominant within TG3 (non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU).

Looking at the same information the other way round shows again differences referring

to the mobility across FOS. The field of science with the highest rate of non-mobile

researchers is Humanities (TG4: 59%), the one with the highest share of mobile

researchers Natural Sciences (sum T1 to T3: 63%), followed by Engineering and

Technology Sciences (T1 to T3: 52%). In the former case, the group of EU researchers

currently working outside the EU (TG1) stands out (reaching above the average shares;

TG1-share: 35% in Natural Sciences, compared to 24% in the total sample), whereas in

the latter case the subgroup of non-EU researchers mobile to the EU shows above

average results (TG2-share: 21% in Engineering Sciences; compared to 15% in the total

sample).

70.6

29.4

65.8

34.2

59.2

40.8

69.8

30.2

76.5

23.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Y es


October 2017 37

Figure 7: Fields of science by target group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 8: “What is your main field of research in your current position?”

Male and female researchers are not equally distributed across all fields of science. The

most balanced disciplines are Medical Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities, in which

51%, 49% and 47% of the researchers are women. However, the imbalance is found in

Engineering and Technology (23% female); also in the Agricultural (29%) and in Natural

Sciences (31%) the presence of women is clearly lower.

20.4

18.4

14.8

3.8

32.5

10.1

29.5

17.3

17.0

2.2

25.9

8.2

24.0

24.7

9.9

4.9

28.1

8.4

20.8

16.3

11.8

5.1

37.6

8.4

15.0

17.4

15.8

4.0

35.9

12.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Natural Sciences Engineering and Technology

Medical Sciences Agricultural Sciences

Social Sciences Humanities


October 2017 38

Figure 8: Differences in gender across fields of science

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 8: “What is your main field of research in your current position?” and

question 2: “What is your gender?” - (n=1,727)

Career stage: Researchers were asked to select their current career stage from the

following four stages: first stage researcher (R1), recognised researcher (R2),

established researcher (R3) and leading researcher (R4). In the total sample, established

researchers constitute the largest group (39%). Together with the leading researchers

they represent nearly two-third of the sample. First stage researchers (R1) constitute the

smallest part of the sample (15%)49.

Figure 114 (in annex) shows the distribution of researchers over career stages per

countries50. While in certain countries shares of researchers in some career stages are

much larger than in others, in other countries the different career stages are

approximately comparable in size (for example, India). This points at different patterns,

from flat to pyramid distributions. The fact that large differences between countries are

observed can point to different structures of higher education systems in terms of the

size of the “pyramid”.

When comparing the four target groups by researchers’ career stages, one can observe

that among the non-EU researchers mobile to the EU, the share of leading researchers

49 The majority of responses are obtained via contacts of the web-based email generation process. R1

researchers are often underrepresented via this method, as R1 researchers are overall more difficult to identify/detect at the website of higher education institutions. This is primarily because R1 researchers are not always employed at the higher education institution where they are conducting their PhD studies (e.g. sometimes they are regarded as students).

50 Only countries with n > 30 are included.

69.1

30.9

77.0

23.0

49.0

51.0

71.2

28.8

51.3

48.7

52.6

47.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Natural SciencesEngineering and Technology

Medical SciencesAgricultural Sciences

Social SciencesHumanities

Male Female


October 2017 39

(R4) is rather high (32%), whereas just 20% of the EU researchers currently working

abroad self-selected themselves as leading researchers. This might, to a certain extent,

be due to the lower average age of the EU researchers currently working abroad and the

fact that researchers in TG1 are only required to be mobile at the point of taking the

survey, whereas researchers in TG2 were mobile at least twice.

The share of first stage researchers (R1) is the lowest in the subgroup of EU researchers

abroad (9%). This is accompanied by a relatively high share of recognised researchers

among the EU researchers currently working abroad (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Target groups by researchers’ career stages

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes:

Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263)

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) Based on question 10: “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?”

There is no evidence in the results of the MORE3 Global survey that the glass ceiling for

women to reach higher career stages has been smashed. Among R4 researchers, only

28% of the total sample are female, whereas female representation is clearly higher in

lower career stages (R3: 40%; R2: 46%) and reaches the highest share in the lowest

career stage, where more than 50% of all first stage researchers (R1) are women.

Looking at the same information the other way round confirms the gender difference with

respect to career stages. Just 17% of all female researchers in the sample self-selected

themselves as leading researcher (R4), compared to 29% of all men (see Figure 114 in

annex). Whereas the proportion of first and second career stage (R1 or R2) is clearly

higher among female (44%) researchers compared to the male respondents (32%).

15.0

21.5

39.1

24.4

8.6

32.9

38.8

19.7

10.3

20.2

37.6

31.9

14.0

16.9

42.1

27.0

19.7

17.4

39.1

23.8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


R1 First Stage Researcher R2 Recognised Researcher

R3 Establ ished Researcher R4 Leading Researcher


October 2017 40

Figure 10: Differences in gender across career stages


Notes: - Based on question 10: “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” and

question 2: “What is your gender?” - (n=1,727)

Overall, while our sample is not representative at the country level, several

characteristics are roughly in line with sociodemographics observed in other studies

(MORE3 HE survey) or statistics (OECD statistics on researchers). This concerns e.g. the

distribution of female researchers across field of sciences (lower shares in natural

sciences and engineering) and across career stages (lower shares in higher career

stages).

5.1.2. Dual positions

Knowledge spillovers within and between higher education institutions, as well as

university-industry knowledge transfer contribute to economic well-being and knowledge

gains according to the literature51. This section presents results about the situation of

researchers currently in a dual position which may facilitate such knowledge spillovers.52

A dual position is defined as employment in more than one institution or organisation at

51 Cañibano - Otamendi - Andújar, 2008; O’Shea – Chugh - Allen, 2008; Perkmann et al., 2013 "Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi,

R., Hughes, A., (2013) "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations", Res. Policy, 42(2), pp. 423–442."

52 Although dual positions are only one way to achieve knowledge spillovers.

49.4

50.6

54.2

45.8

60.1

39.9

72.4

27.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R1 First Stage Researcher R2 Recognised Researcher R3 Established Researcher R4 Leading Researcher

Male Female


October 2017 41

the same time (either combined positions in more than one HEI or combined positions in

a HEI and in another sector).

Just a small proportion of all the respondents to the Global Survey (researchers currently

working outside the EU) have a dual position (12%), either inside or outside the higher

education sector.

Target groups: Figure 11 shows that there are no large differences across the four main

target groups in this area: the largest difference (only 4 percentage points) is found

between EU researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1: 10% holds a dual

position) and non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (TG2: 14%).

However, this difference is too small to enable extraction of meaningful or generalisable

conclusions.

Country of current employment: The differences between country groups of current

employment are somewhat more prominent (see second graph of Figure 11; and Table

50 in annex 5 for the definition of these county groups of employment). Among

researchers currently employed in the US just 6% state that they are in a dual position,

whereas in the group of BRICS countries the share of researchers employed in a dual

position is clearly higher (16%). This might be due to lower satisfaction with working

conditions in the BRICS. For instance, the satisfaction with salaries is generally lower in

BRICS countries. Researchers’ perception of remuneration in section 6.2 shows that only

12% of researchers working in BRICS nations think that they are well-paid. However,

having a dual position need not correspond with better or worse working conditions. Dual

positions might be seen at the level of directors – chairing a non-academic organisation

may go hand in hand with being a professor - or professors at universities for applied

sciences keep their position in industry, particularly to ensure their close links to

industry. Therefore a double position need not be a matter of employment conditions but

it could also be a matter of choice related to motivations to combine theory and practice.

Figure 11: Share of researchers currently in a dual position by target groups and by current employment country groups


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 16: “Are you currently in a so-called “dual position” whereby you are

employed as a researcher in more than one institution/organisation at the same time” - This is a broader definition of “dual position” than in MORE2 and, thus results here cannot be

compared with MORE2 values. In MORE2 it was only asked if researchers combine employment in the HE sector with a position outside the HE sector.

10.114.1

11.8 13.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

9.36.4

10.5

15.9 17.8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anglo Saxon US Non-EU OECD BRICS Other


October 2017 42

Career stage: Questions on dual positions were asked to all four career stages in the

MORE 3 Global survey53. Across career stages, researchers are roughly equally likely to

engage in a dual position (R1: 14%, R2: 12%, R3: 11%, R4: 14%). As outlined, this may

hide differences in position, with R4 researchers co-chairing institutions in different

sectors and R1 or R2 researchers forced to take on a dual position to make ends meet.

Within the group of men the share of those employed in a dual position is similar (13%)

to that among female researchers (12%,

Table 53 in annex 6).

Current sector of employment: The survey questioned researchers on the sectors

where they work as researchers and on whether they have a dual position. In the latter

case researchers were asked to state also the sector of their second position. Table 10

shows the results of both researcher groups with and without a dual positon, however in

the latter case just the main position is used. The large majority of the total sample is

employed at a university or in a higher education institution: on average 88% of all

researchers in the sample mentioned the university or a higher education institution as

their main sector of current employment. The university or HEI sector reaches the

highest share in the group of non-EU researchers who were mobile but not towards the

EU (TG3: 92%) and the lowest share among all non-mobile non-EU researchers (TG4:

86%), compared to the average. However, the differences between the four main target

groups are quite small. The second most frequent sector named is the public or

government sector in all four target groups (ranging from 4% in TG3 to 9% in TG1). The

private sector is of little importance, even when summing up the shares of employment

in large firms, SMEs, start-ups or NGOs, the share varies just from 3% (TG1) to 4% in

the group of EU researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1).

Table 10: Distribution of researchers across sectors of current employment by target

group


University or higher education institution

87.6% 86.6% 89.7% 92.1% 86.4%

Public or government sector, e.g. research-performing organisation

7.1% 9.4% 5.3% 3.9% 7.2%

Private, not-for-profit sector, e.g. research foundation, NGO

1.7% 1.4% 1.5% 1.7% 2.0%

Private industry: Large firm 0.9% 1.7% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8%

Private industry: SME or start-up 0.9% 0.7% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9%

Other 1.7% 0.2% 1.9% 0.6% 2.6%


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 17: “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?” and

question 18: “You are currently in a dual position whereby you are employed in more than

one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you please indicate the sector of your 2 main research position?”

- In case of researchers in dual positions the main position is used (question 18).

53 In the MORE3 EU HE survey only R2-R4 researchers answered the question on dual positions.


October 2017 43

Sectors of dual positions: As indicated, 12% of the respondents hold a dual position.

Three-quarters of all researchers in a dual position indicated the university or a HEI as

their main position. Although the share is lower than in the total sample of all

researchers (not restricted just to those in dual positions), the opposite is the case for

the public or government sector. For researchers in dual positions (Table 11) the public

sector has higher importance as main sector of employment (14%) than in the total

sample (7%, Table 10).

Table 11: Number of researchers by main position of current employment in a dual position and by target group


University or higher education institution 161 33 30 17 81 Public or government sector, e.g. research-performing organisation

31 6 4 2 19

Private, not-for-profit sector, e.g. research

foundation, NGO 9 1 2 1 5

Private industry: Large firm 3 - - 1 2

Private industry: SME or start-up 5 2 - - 3

Other 5 - 1 - 4

All sectors 214 42 37 21 114

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=214) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=42)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=37) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=21) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=114) - Based on question 18: “You are currently in a dual position whereby you are employed in

more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you please indicate the sector of your 2 main research position?” (Main position/second position)

- This is a broader definition of “dual position” than in MORE2 and, thus results here cannot be

compared with MORE2 values. In MORE2 it was only asked if researchers combine

employment in the HE sector with a position outside the HE sector. - Just the main position is used. - Due to low n value in TG3 just absolute frequencies and no shares are shown.

Restricting the sample to cases of dual positions where the university or HEI is the main

position (see

Figure 12) shows that most of these researchers combine the HE sector as the primary

sector with another university or HEI. More than one-fifth combine the HEI as the main

position with an employment at the public or government sector and 18% with an

employment in the private sector (non-profit: 12%, SME or start-up: 5%, large firm less

than 1%).


October 2017 44

Figure 12: Distribution of second position of current employment in a dual position if

main position is at a university/HEI


- Just researchers in dual positions where the main position is university.

- Based on question 18: “You are currently in a dual position whereby you are employed in more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you please indicate the sector of your 2 main research position?”

- (n=161)

Looking at the number of combinations of the HE sector with positions in another, non-

HE sector54 – regardless of whether the HEI is the main or second position – shows that

more than half (11455) of all 214 researchers currently employed in a dual position

combined a HE position with an non-HE position. However, n-values are – especially for

TG3 - too low to extract meaningful additional analysis across target groups from the

results.

54 Additionally one should keep in mind that the questions on dual positions were answered by researchers at

all career stages (R1-R4) in the MORE3 Global survey. Whereas in the MORE3 EU HE survey only R2-R4 researchers answered the question.

55 This corresponds to 7% of the total sample. However one has to keep in mind that citizenship requirements in public institutions might hinder non-citizen movers to work in public institutions.

57.1%

21.7%

12.4%

0.6%5.0%

3.1%

University or higher education i Public or government sector, e.g

Private, not-for-profit sector, Private industry: Large firm

Private industry: SME or s tart-u Other


October 2017 45

5.2. Education and training: PhD studies

By comparison with the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global survey included fewer

questions on PhD studies. Questions were asked on whether respondents obtained a PhD

degree or are currently enrolled in PhD studies; on the supervision structure of the PhDs;

and on the transferable skills which were part of their PhD studies. Questions on

characteristics of PhD training and EU principles of doctoral training were left out for the

MORE3 Global survey.

5.2.1. PhD degree or enrolment in PhD programme

Similar to the results from the MORE3 EU HE survey, a very high share of researchers

has either finished their PhD studies (80%) or is currently enrolled in a PhD program

(14%; Figure 13). Shares of researchers having obtained a PhD and currently enrolled in

PhD programs reach 99% in the group of EU researchers working abroad (TG1), only

slightly decreasing across target groups down to 90% in target group 4, the group of

non-mobile researchers. Hence, the quality and structure of PhD studies play an

important role for the skills of researchers. The structure of PhD studies will be analysed

in the next section.

Figure 13: PhD graduation and enrolment in PhD programs by target group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 11: “Did you obtain a PhD degree?”

79.8

13.7

6.5

89.9

9.1

1.0

84.4

11.4

4.2

80.9

12.9

6.2

73.3

16.8

9.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Yes No, but I am currently working on a PhD or enrol led in a doctoral program

No


October 2017 46

Target groups: To get an idea about where researchers graduated or will be graduating

across the four target groups, Figure 14 shows various country groupings which are

partly overlapping, indicated by a dashed line in the figure:

The US is part of Anglo-Saxon and the non-EU OECD;

Some countries of the Anglo-Saxon Group are part of the non-EU OECD (Canada,

Australia, New Zealand), some are part of the EU (UK, Ireland) and South Africa is

a BRICS country.

More detailed information about the country groups is provided in Table 51 in annex 5.

The country groups were formed because of the importance of PhD mobility in Anglo-

Saxon countries which often offer PhD studies to foreign students. The PhD programmes

of these countries are often seen as prestigious56. About 75% of researchers have

obtained a PhD in an OECD-country, while only 19% did or are doing their PhD in an

emerging country such as a BRICS country or a different country from Asia, South

America or Africa; more than half obtained or will obtain their PhD from an Anglo-Saxon

country, while 27% graduated or will be graduating from an EU country, including the

three associated countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

Country of graduation: Table 12 shows country of graduation by all surveyed

researchers. Again, most researchers in the various groups have obtained their PhD from

an EU or a non-EU OECD country. About 42% of all respondents who have obtained or

will obtain a PhD have a different citizenship to their country of graduation.

56 See Franzoni, C., G. Scellato, und P. Stephan. “Foreign Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for Sixteen

Countries“. NBER Working Paper 18067 (2012).


October 2017 47

Figure 14: Country of graduation among researchers who have obtained or are

enrolled in PhD studies


Notes: - Based on question 13: “What is/will be the country of graduation (of your PhD degree)?”

- (n=1,615)

Table 12: Country of graduation by target group

Anglo- Saxon

US EU and

associated EU

Non-EU OECD

BRICS Other


26.8% 6.3% 47.8% 16.7% 1.8% 0.6%


31.1% 7.4% 15.6% 31.1% 10.8% 4.1%

TG3: Non-EU researchers who

have worked abroad but not in the EU

32.6% 16.6% 6.9% 33.2% 7.9% 2.7%


33.7% 10.8% 5.3% 34.6% 11.3% 4.2%

Total 54.8% 17.3% 28.6% 51.8% 15.0% 5.6%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 13: “What is/will be the country of graduation (of your PhD degree)?” - (n=885/279/462/837/243/90)

- Note that a small share of researchers in TG3 and TG4 indicated graduation from an EU country. Researchers were questioned about their mobility patters after gaining their highest educational qualification (PhD or other).

51.2

16.2

26.8

48.5

14.1

5.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anglo Saxon USA EU & associated EU Non-EU OECD BRICS Other


October 2017 48

Country of current employment: Figure 15 finally shows the country of employment

of researchers by their PhD status. More developed countries such as the US and other

non-EU OECD countries show higher shares of PhD graduates among the researchers

who responded to the MORE3 Global survey, indicating that in advanced countries, a PhD

is the main entry into research careers and that it would be difficult to enter research

careers without a PhD, yet again pointing to the crucial role of the quality and quantity of

PhD training for attractive research systems. The difference with the BRICS countries is,

however, only small.

Figure 15: Country of employment of researchers by PhD-status

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 11: “Did you obtain a PhD degree?” and question 22 “Country of current

employment” - (n=1,727)

Target groups: The MORE3 Global survey also included a question on whether the PhD

obtained or enrolled in is a joint degree, as defined by a degree issued by two

institutions, whether in the same country or in two different countries. Across target

groups, Figure 16 indicates that joint degrees are a rare phenomenon, ranging from 5%

among EU researchers working abroad (TG1) to 10% among non-EU researchers who

have been mobile to the EU (TG2).

Country of graduation: The distribution of joint degrees among researchers by country

of graduation (Figure 17) seems to indicate that joint degrees are more common in

emerging countries, as joint degrees in the BRICS and in other countries make up 14-

20% of all degrees. While the questionnaire did not include specific questions on the

motivations for enrolling in joint degrees, it can be speculated that it might be more

attractive to combine the PhD in these countries with a degree in more developed

countries usually offering more attractive higher education systems.

82.8

13.1

4.2

90.7

5.1

4.2

83.0

12.1

4.9

76.9

16.6

6.6

66.4

18.7

15.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anglo Saxon USA Non-EU OECD BRICS Other

Yes No, but I am currently working on a PhD or enrol led in a doctoral program

No


October 2017 49

Figure 16: Prevalence of joint degrees across the four target groups


- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=413) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=252)

- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU (n=167) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=783) - Based on question 12: “Is/will your PhD degree (be) a joint doctorate?”

92.4

7.6

95.2

4.8

89.7

10.3

94.0

6.0

91.4

8.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Yes


October 2017 50

Figure 17: Joint degrees by country of PhD graduation

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 12: “Is/will your PhD degree (be) a joint doctorate?” and question 13:

“What is/will be the country of graduation (of your PhD degree)?”

- (n=1,615)

5.2.2. PhD supervision structure

PhD supervision structures are an important characteristic of the professionalisation of

PhD studies, with more traditional master-apprenticeship studies (“PhD supervision by

just one senior researcher”) struggling to impart broader skills sets to PhD graduates.

Target groups: Figure 18 shows that more traditional PhD studies are quite frequent,

ranging from just under one third (31%) in the group of non-EU researchers who were

mobile, but not towards the EU (TG3), to 53% in the group of non-EU researchers who

were mobile to the EU (TG2). Broader and more structured PhD supervision structures,

such as supervisory committees and doctoral schools, make up for 40% (non-EU

researchers who were mobile to the EU) to 55% of all PhD degrees or enrolments (non-

EU researchers who were mobile, but not to the EU).

97.9

2.1

98.6

1.4

90.7

9.3

95.5

4.5

85.6

14.4

80.0

20.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No Yes


October 2017 51

Figure 18: PhD supervision structures across target groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=564)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=169)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=77) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=51) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=267) - Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders. - The answer could be either that PhD supervision was undertaken by just one senior, by a

supervisory committee, embedded in a doctoral school or took another form. - Based on question 14: “How would you describe your PhD in terms of supervision structure?”

Country of graduation: Investigating PhD supervision structures by country of

graduation yields an interesting insight, in that 61% of all PhDs obtained or being

undertaken in the US are embedded in doctoral schools, and a further 22% have taken

place or take place under the umbrella of a supervisory committee, while only 10%

correspond to the more traditional Single Researcher-PhD-model. By contrast, 45% of

PhD studies in the EU correspond to the latter model. This points to the differences in the

way PhD studies are organised and structured in the US and the EU, although the EU is

of course very heterogeneous (see the report on the MORE3 EU HE survey). In the

BRICS, the share of the single researcher PhD model is even higher at 55%.

40.8

22.5

27.1

9.6

43.8

17.2

29.6

9.5

53.2

18.2

22.1

6.5

31.4

21.6

33.3

13.7

37.1

27.3

25.8

9.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Single Researcher Supervisory Committee

Doctoral School Other


October 2017 52

Figure 19: PhD supervision structures by country of graduation

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders. - The answer could be either that PhD supervision was undertaken by just one senior, by a

supervisory committee, embedded in a doctoral school or took another form. - Based on question 14: “How would you describe your PhD in terms of supervision structure?”

and on question 13: “What is/will be the country of graduation (of your PhD degree)?” - (n=564)

5.2.3. PhD training – transferable skills

An important aspect of PhD studies is their ability to provide training for young scientists

in transferable skills such as research skills, people and project management. This

broadens the labour market options for researchers. On average across the four groups

of R1 and R2 researchers, 93% respond that they have received some form of training in

transferable skills, with very little variation between the four groups.

The transferable skills researchers received during PhD studies are predominantly related

to skills necessary for research activities themselves, such as research skills (88%) or

skills related to creative thinking, decision making and communication (67%-71%). More

general work management-related skills such as time and project management as well as

the ability to work in teams come somewhat behind at around 50%. Skills related to

engaging with other areas of society and business, such as collaboration with citizens,

entrepreneurship or intellectual property rights, are least frequently received by the

researchers in our sample, in line with the MORE3 EU HE survey.

39.5

25.2

22.7

12.6

9.8

21.6

60.8

7.8

44.5

16.8

29.0

9.7

33.0

27.2

28.6

11.2

55.4

13.9

22.8

7.9

40.0

32.5

25.0

2.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Single Researcher Supervisory Committee

Doctoral School Other


October 2017 53

Figure 20: Prevalence of training in transferable skills by type of transferable skills,

across all target groups


Notes: - Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders.

- Based on question 15: “Please indicate below the training modules in transferable skills that you have received during your doctorate”

- (n=564)

Country of graduation: There are interesting variations across the country groups

examined. For example, collaboration with citizens and governments was much less a

feature in PhD studies conducted in the EU (14%) than in either non-EU OECD countries

(28%) or in the BRICS countries (28%). Communication and presentation skills are near

omni-present in US PhDs, while they reach only 50% in other countries and 68% in the

EU. A similar picture can be seen for decision-making skills. The US also leads in digital

skills, while interestingly entrepreneurship is a skill mostly taught in PhD studies of other

countries, which are mainly emerging or developing countries from Asia, South America

and Africa. This is potentially related to much higher entrepreneurship levels in poorer

countries, i.e. higher education institutions may teach entrepreneurship in their PhD

programmes because they are aware that it is a quite frequent labour market option for

their graduates57. Note, however, that the evidence on entrepreneurship mostly does not

distinguish by level of education, so this area warrants further research.

Ethics is less taught in the EU and in other countries (around 28%) than in non-EU OECD

countries (56%). Proposal and grant writing occurs more frequently in the US (57%)

than in the EU (42%), as does teamwork (65% vs 47%), creative thinking (88 vs 68%)

57 Cf. the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, http://www.gemconsortium.org/

87.8

70.968.6

66.8

53.0

46.8 46.1 46.144.9

40.2

29.6 29.3

23.9

18.1

12.19.4

4.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rese

arch sk

ills

Think

ing

Decisio

n makin

g

Com

mun

icatio

n skills

Time m

anagem

ent

Projec

t manag

emen

t

Team

work

Propos

al writi

ng

Ethic

s

Networki

ng

Digita

l skil

ls

Peopl

e m

anagem

ent

Collabo

ratio

n with

oth

ers

Negotia

tion

IPR

Entre

prene

ursh

ip

Oth

er


October 2017 54

and time management (71% vs. 48%). Again, the structural differences between

doctoral training in the US and in the EU must be pointed out. In the US, structured PhD

training in the form of doctoral schools can more easily address transferable skills than

PhD training in the form of master-apprentice relationships. The results should hence not

be taken as a sign that these skills are valued less in the EU, but that their teaching in

addition to progress in the PhD topic itself is more difficult in such contexts.

Table 13: Transferable skills received by country group of graduation

Anglo- Saxon

US EU and

associated

EU

Non-EU

OECD

BRICS Other

Research skills 88.2% 99.6% 85.8% 90.9% 84.2% 85.0%

Thinking 72.7% 88.2% 67.7% 76.1% 64.4% 62.5%

Decision making 71.0% 84.3% 69.0% 71.0% 65.3% 60.0%

Communication skills 74.5% 94.1% 67.7% 72.5% 55.4% 50.0%

Time management 61.2% 70.6% 48.4% 61.6% 42.6% 37.5%

Project management 52.8% 52.9% 40% 52.2% 47.5% 40.0%

Proposal writing 49.7% 56.9% 41.9% 48.9% 44.6% 45.0%

Teamwork 46.9% 64.7% 47.1% 47.5% 44.6% 42.5%

Ethics 54.2% 54.9% 27.7% 55.8% 49.5% 27.5%

Networking 44.4% 51% 41.3% 43.5% 39.6% 20.0%

Digital skills 30.1% 39.2% 27.1% 31.2% 31.7% 22.5%

People management 32.2% 35.3% 26.5% 32.6% 24.8% 27.5%

Collaboration with others 28.0% 31.4% 14.2% 27.5% 27.7% 27.5%

Negotiation 18.2% 17.6% 14.2% 19.9% 20.8% 12.5%

IPR 11.2% 9.8% 11.6% 11.6% 12.9% 17.5%

Entrepreneurship 5.6% 5.9% 9.0% 7.6% 12.9% 17.5%


- Only R1 PhD candidates and R2 PhD holders. - Based on question 15: “Please indicate below the training modules in transferable skills that

you have received during your doctorate” and on question 13: “What is/will be the country of graduation (of your PhD degree)?”

- (n=564)


October 2017 55

5.3. Recruitment

Recruitment policies are an important tool to shape universities’ and other research

insitutions’ current and future research orientation and, of course, they directly affect

researchers’ career perspectives and perceptions of attractiveness of research jobs. The

MORE3 Global survey included the same questions on recruitment as the MORE3 EU HE

survey. Questions were asked on how recruitment is perceived (transparent, merit-

based, publicly advertised) and which factors are perceived to have positive or negative

impacts for recruitment in the researchers’ home institutions. All researchers currently

working at universities or higher education institutions were asked these questions.

5.3.1. Open, transparent and merit-based recruitment

Overall, the majority of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey agreed

that job vacancies are sufficiently publicly advertised, and that recruitment processes are

sufficiently transparent and merit-based. However, in comparison with the MORE3 EU HE

survey, fewer researchers perceive that vacancies were sufficiently advertised and that

recruitment is sufficiently merit-based and transparent in their home institution (in a

non-EU country). In total, 67% of respondents to the MORE3 Global survey perceive that

vacancies are sufficiently externally and publicly advertised and made known by their

home institution (MORE3 EU HE: 80%). Similarly, 62% of researchers perceive the

recruitment process to be sufficiently transparent (MORE3 EU HE: 74%). 66% of

researchers in the MORE3 Global survey perceive that recruitment is sufficiently merit-

based in their home institution (MORE3 EU HE: 77%). Overall, the lack of sufficient public

advertisement of job vacancies seems to be less often perceived as problematic than the

absence of merit-based and transparent recruitment processes, which is in line with the

general results of the MORE3 EU HE survey.

Target groups: Only little variation between different target groups can be observed

(see Figure 21). 67% of non-EU researchers who have been mobile, but not towards the

EU (TG3) perceive recruitment processes to be transparent. In other target groups, the

shares range between 60% and 64%. Similarly, the question of whether vacancies are

sufficiently publicly advertised shows a rather small variation between different target

groups. The range between the highest and the lowest share of researchers perceiving

recruitment as sufficiently merit-based across target groups is a bit wider. In general, it

can be noted that target groups TG2 and TG4, the group of non-European researchers

having worked in Europe in the past and non-EU researchers who have never worked

abroad, demonstrate the lowest approval ratings across all three issues related to this

question (transparent, merit-based, publicly advertised). An important remark is that the

results concern their current home institution and not the institution they may have been

mobile to.


October 2017 56

Figure 21: Researchers’ perception of recruitment processes in their home institution,

by target groups


- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=361) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=236) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries

(n=164) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=751) - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to recruitment in their home

institution. - Based on question 31: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to

recruitment in your home institution?”

Country of employment: As shown in Figure 22, differences between certain groups of

‘country of employment’ can be observed, in particular for the US. In comparison with

other (non-EU) country groups, the share of researchers perceiving recruitment as

sufficiently transparent, publicly advertised and merit-based is the highest in the US. This

is particularly striking with respect to transparency. The share of researchers that

perceive the recruitment process to be sufficiently transparent is at least 10 percentage

points higher in the group of researchers currently employed in the US than in the

researchers currently employed in non-EU OECD, BRICS or other countries.

67.1 66.2

61.9

69.5 69.1

63.8 65.0 63.660.2

68.9

73.8

66.9 66.163.8

60.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Externally and publicly advertised vacancies Merit-based recruitment

Transparent recruitment process


October 2017 57


by country groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector.

- Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to recruitment in their home institution.

- Based on question 31: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to recruitment in your home institution?”

- (n=1,396-1,428)

Contract type: Researchers’ perception of recruitment processes in their home

institution also depends on the type of contract they have. Perceptions of researchers

with permanent contracts deviate from those of researchers that are still struggling with

fixed-term contracts regarding the level of transparency and merit-based recruitment.

While 70% of researchers with permanent contracts perceive recruitment to be

sufficiently merit-based, only 60% of researchers with fixed-term contracts would agree

(see Table 14). Similarly, the share of researchers who think that recruitment is

sufficiently transparent is higher among researchers with permanent contracts (66%)

than among researchers with fixed-term contracts (54%).

76.3

69.266.7

80.9

72.173.8

69.0 67.9

62.9

68.1

61.1 61.9

52.8

63.2

55.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Externally and publ icly advertised vacancies Merit-based recruitment

Transparent recrui tment process


October 2017 58

Table 14: Researchers’ perception of recruitment processes in their home institution

by types of contract

Externally and

publicly advertised vacancies

Merit-based recruitment

Transparent recruitment

process

Permanent/open-ended contract 69.0% 69.8% 66.1%

Fixed term contract 63.6% 60.5% 53.9%

No contract or self-employed 65.1% 65.9% 59.8%


- Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to recruitment in their home institution.

- Based on question 31: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to recruitment in your home institution?” and question 23 “Type of contract”.

- (n=1,336-1,368)

5.3.2. Factors for recruitment

Analogous to the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global survey includes questions on

how non-standard research outputs, transferable skills and mobility experiences affect

recruitment in their home institution. Overall, three different types of mobility

experiences are considered as factors that could have an impact on recruitment:

international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility experiences (or interdisciplinary

research approaches). Besides, it is also asked whether alternative forms of research

output (e.g. project reports, grant writing, the development and maintenance of data

infrastructure, organisation of research events or conferences) and transferable skills, i.e.

skills developed in one situation which can be transferred to another situation (e.g.

project management, data cleaning, networking), affect recruitment in researchers’ home

institutions.

With the exception of an intersectoral mobility experience in the private sector, two other

forms of mobility (international and interdisciplinary mobility) are perceived as being

important for recruitment by the majority of researchers in the MORE3 Global survey. As

shown in Table 15, 73% of researchers perceive international mobility as a positive factor

for recruitment and 62% associate positive effects on recruitment with interdisciplinary

mobility experiences. In contrast, only 43% of researchers perceive intersectoral mobility

experiences to the private sector to be a positive factor for recruitment. Moreover,

negative effects for recruitment are most often associated with intersectoral mobility

experiences, closely followed by interdisciplinary mobility experiences (each

approximately 10%). In comparison with the MORE3 EU HE survey, the ranking of the

shares of researchers that perceive these three types of mobility to be positively related

to recruitment is the same. However, each of the three types of mobility is associated

with lower positive effects on recruitment in the MORE3 global survey.

Target groups: Differentiating between target groups reveals little variation with

respect to alternative research output, transferable skills and interdisciplinary mobility

experience (see Table 54 in annex). However, regarding positive effects of international

mobility experiences, the range between the minimum share of researchers perceiving it

as a positive factor for recruitment and the maximum share is about 10 percentage

points. While 81% of researchers in group TG2 (non-European researchers having

worked in Europe in the past ten years) agree that international mobility positively

affects recruitment, only a share of 71% in group TG4 (non-EU researchers who have

never worked abroad) agrees. The variation with respect to intersectional mobility across

different target groups is less pronounced. At maximum, 46% of researchers in TG4

perceive intersectional mobility to be positive for recruitment, while 39% of researchers

in TG1 (European researchers currently working abroad) agrees. However, the total


October 2017 59

share of researchers that perceive intersectoral mobility experiences as a negative factor

for recruitment (11%) is the highest among all factors, in particular in the group of non-

European researchers which worked in Europe in the past (14%).

Country of current employment: Overall, little variation between country groups can

be observed (see Table 54). However, with respect to international mobility and, to a

lesser extent, intersectional mobility, the US represents an excepetion compared to other

country groups of employment. While the shares of researchers who perceive

international mobility as a positive factor for recruitment ranges from between 71% and

75% in other country groups, only 57% of researchers currently working in the US agree.

This could reflect a generally lower importance of international experiences for US

research careers as a consequence of the high quality of the US research system in

comparison to other national research systems. Similarly, among researchers currently

working in the US, 35% perceive intersectoral mobility as a positive factor for

recruitment in contrast to 44% (BRICS) and 52% (Other) of researchers who agree.

Table 15: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by country groups

Positive Factor Negative Factor

Anglo- Saxon

US Non-EU

OECD BRICS Other

Anglo Saxon

US Non-EU

OECD BRICS Other

Inter-

disciplinary mobility

63.0% 64.0% 61.9% 63.7% 60.6% 11.8% 9.1% 11.2% 8.1% 11.0%

Inter-national mobility

70.6% 56.7% 72.8% 75.4% 71.0% 4.9% 5.3% 4.6% 5.5% 11.1%

Inter-

sectoral mobility

42.2% 34.7% 41.3% 44.4% 52.2% 10.9% 10.2% 11.0% 10.7% 10.2%

Research output

63.0% 64.0% 63.5% 67.3% 66.9% 8.6% 4.8% 8.2% 6.4% 6.3%

Trans-

ferable skills

61.7% 60.5% 59.9% 61.7% 66.5% 3.9% 3.2% 4.5% 3.6% 7.1%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing that the factors are regarded as positive or negative for

recruitment in their home institution. Devoid of the share of researchers indicating that the factor is not relevant.

- Based on question 33: “In your experience would you say that the following factors are

regarded as positive or negative factors for recruitment in your home institution?” - (n=1,363-1,443)

Career stage: With regard to international mobility, no high levels of heterogeneity can

be observed across career stages (see Table 16). The spread ranges from 74% of R4

researchers that regard international mobility experience as a positive factor for

recruitment to 72% of R3 researchers. The largest difference between career stages can

be observed with respect to transferable skills: 55% of R4 researchers and 71% of R1

researchers consider transferable skills as a positive factor for recruitment. Interestingly,

a higher share of (young) early stage researchers perceive intersectoral and

interdisciplinary mobility experience as well as transferable skills and non-standard

research outputs as positive factors than do (older) established researchers. While only

38% of R4 researchers evaluate intersectoral mobility experience as a positive factor for

recruitment, 52% of R1 researchers would agree. 58% of R3 researchers perceive

interdisciplinary mobility as positive and 72% of R1 researchers would agree. This is in

line with the results of the MORE3 EU HE survey. However, whether these results reflect

an increasing importance of non-standard skills in research careers remains to be seen.


October 2017 60

Table 16: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by career stages


R1 R2 R3 R4 R1 R2 R3 R4

Interdisciplinary mobility 71.7% 66.1% 57.9% 60.0% 8.8% 9.3% 11.4% 11.5%

International mobility 72.9% 73.0% 72.3% 74.2% 7.2% 6.5% 5.6% 3.5%

Intersectoral mobility 51.5% 43.8% 43.1% 38.0% 10.1% 10.9% 9.6% 13.2%

Research output 71.4% 68.6% 62.9% 59.9% 4.9% 5.9% 9.6% 7.5%

Transferable skills 71.4% 64.6% 58.6% 55.5% 5.3% 3.4% 5.5% 3.9%


- Share of researchers agreeing that the factors are regarded as positive for recruitment in their home institution. Devoid of the share of researchers indicating that the factor is not relevant.

- Based on question 33: “In your experience would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for recruitment in your home institution?” and

question 10 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” - (n=1,363-1,440)

5.4. Career progression

In line with the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global survey asked respondents

several questions on how career paths, which regulate career progression, are perceived

across countries and how non-standard research outputs and mobility phases influence

progression along the career path. The next section looks at the determinants of

progression in terms of whether researchers perceive career progression to be merit-

based and transparent. Then factors that co-determine career progression in research

careers are identified. Finally, the confidence researchers have about their future career

is analysed.

5.4.1. Open, transparent and merit-based career progression

On average the share of researchers agreeing that the different types of career paths are

clear and transparent at their home institutions is 61%. The shares of researchers

perceiving the career progression as being sufficiently merit-based and agreeing that

obtaining a tenured contract is based on merit only are slightly lower: 58% and 57% of

all researchers respectively. Results on career progression show a pattern similar to the

results of the MORE3 EU HE survey. However, overall, the shares of researchers

perceiving career paths as transparent, career progression as sufficiently merit-based

and tenured contracts to be based on merit only have been larger in the MORE3 EU HE

survey (71%, 65% and 64% respectively) than in the MORE3 Global survey.

Target groups: As with recruitment, there is little variation between target groups in

the perception of whether career paths are clear and transparent for researchers (see

Figure 23). While 60% of European researchers currently working outside Europe (TG1)

agree that career paths are clear and transparent in their home insititutions, the

maximum share of researchers agreeing to that is only slightly higher (63%) and located

in target group TG3, i.e. non-EU researchers who have been mobile but not towards the

EU. Similarly, shares of researchers perceiving career progression as sufficiently merit-

based range between 57% and 63% in the groups of non-EU researchers who have

never worked abroad (TG4) and of non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not

in the EU (TG3) respectively. The largest differences between target groups can be

observed regarding the question whether obtaining a tenured contract based on merit

only is perceived common practice at their home institutions. The lower bound is in TG1,

European researchers currently working abroad (52%), while the higher bound is located

in TG3 (67%), non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU.


October 2017 61

Figure 23: Perception of transparent and merit-based career progression in the home

institution, by target groups


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,512) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=361) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=236) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries

(n=164)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=751) - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to career progression in their home

institution. - Based on question 32: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to career

progression in your home institution?” - (n=1,308-1,434)

Country of current employment: In line with the results on recruitment, differentiating

between groups of researchers’ countries of employment reveals that researchers

working in the US show the highest shares of perceived transparent and merit-based

career progression in their home institution (see Figure 24). In comparison to other

country groups, the share of researchers agreeing that obtaining a tenured contract

based on merit only is common practice is particularly high in the US (68%), while in

BRICS countries only 50% of researchers agree. Again, the share of US researchers is

also higher in the group of Anglo-Saxon countries, including not only the US but

Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Africa and Ireland as well.

58.456.7

61.158.3

52.2

60.2 61.0

57.3

61.263.1

67.4

63.1

56.6 56.4

61.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Merit-based progression Tenured contract based on merit

Transparent progression


October 2017 62


institution by country groups


- Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to career progression in their home institution.

- Based on question 32: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to career

progression in your home institution?” - (n=1,308-1,434)

Contract type: The share of researchers considering career progression as sufficiently

merit-based and transparent in their home institution is the highest in the group of

researchers having permanent (open-ended) contracts (this is analogous to researchers’

perception of positive factors for recruitment). Among those researchers, 66% perceive

career paths as sufficiently clear and transparent; 63% think that obtaining a tenured

contract is based on merit only; and 61% agree that career progression is sufficiently

merit-based. In contrast, among the groups of researchers having fixed-term contracts,

only 45% of researchers agree that obtaining a tenured contract is based on merit only.

The share of researchers with fixed-term contracts perceiving career progression to be

sufficiently merit-based and career paths transparent and clear is 7 percentage points

higher (52% respectively), but still below the shares of agreeing researchers in other

contractual situations. In both groups, those with fixed-term contracts and the

researchers that are self-employed or without contracts, the share of researchers

thinking that obtaining a tenured contract based on merit only is common practice is

significantly lower than in the group of researchers that have a permanent contract (45%

and 46% in contrast to 63%).

61.563.1 62.0 62.4

67.9 67.2

59.262.7

58.9 57.8 57.7

50.0

54.5 56.052.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Merit-based progression Tenured contract based on merit

Transparent progress ion


October 2017 63

Table 17: Perception of transparent and merit-based career progression in the home

institution, by types of contract

Merit-based

progression

Tenured contract

based on merit

Transparent

progression

Permanent/open-ended contract 60.9% 62.9% 65.5%

Fixed term contract 51.7% 45% 51.6%

No contract or self-employed 60.7% 46.5% 58.1%


- Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing on the issues with respect to career progression in their home

institution. - Based on question 32: “What is your opinion on the following issues with respect to career

progression in your home institution?” and question 23 “Type of contract”. - (n=1,260-1,375)

5.4.2. Factors for career progression

Analogous to recruitment, the MORE3 Global survey includes questions on how non-

standard research outputs, transferable skills and mobility experiences affect career

progression are included. Looking at the total shares of researchers, the ordering of the

approval rates changes in comparison to the MORE3 EU HE survey (see section 5.4.3.2

EU HE survey results). While in the MORE3 EU HE survey the two highest approval rates

are found with respect to international mobility and transferable skills (85% and 81%

respectively), in the MORE3 Global survey 69% of researchers perceive international

mobility experiences and 67% perceive alternative forms of research output positive for

career progression. Another 62% of researchers perceive transferable skills and 60%

interdisciplinary mobility experiences as positive factors for career progression. Only 40%

of researchers indicate the same with respect to intersectoral mobility experiences. The

shares of researchers perceiving those factors to positively affect career progression are

generally lower in the MORE3 Global survey than in the MORE3 EU HE survey. A similar

observation was made for the analysis of factors influencing recruitment.

Table 18: Perception of positive factors for career progression by target groups


Total TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 Total TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4


59.9% 57.7% 60.4% 65.2% 59.6% 10.8% 8% 10.7% 9% 12.5%

International mobility 68.7% 65.3% 71.1% 70.1% 69.3% 4.7% 2.1% 7% 7% 4.7%

Intersectoral mobility 40% 36% 39.2% 42.9% 41.5% 14.6% 13.5% 12.2% 18.8% 14.9%

Research output 67.2% 69.9% 66.4% 66.3% 66.4% 9.3% 7.5% 9.9% 11.3% 9.4%

Transferable skills 61.9% 59.9% 59.1% 64.9% 63.2% 4.3% 2.7% 6.1% 2.7% 4.8%


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,512) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=361) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=236)

- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries (n=164)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=751)

- Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing that these factors are regarded as positive or negative for

career progression in their home institution. Devoid of the share of researchers indicating that the factor is not relevant.

- Based on question 34: “In your experience would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for career progression in your home institution?”

- (n=1,387-1,446)


October 2017 64

Target groups: Differentiating between target groups reveals only little differences (see

Figure 22). In particular, regarding alternative research output, little variance between

target groups is observed. In comparison to the 66% of the researchers in target group

TG2, TG3 and TG4 that perceive alternative research output as a positive factor for

career progression, 70% of European researchers currently working abroad (TG1) agree.

Looking at the other factors (included in the survey), the shares of researchers

perceiving them as positive for career progression are most often the highest in the

group of non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3). For

instance, in comparison to 36% of TG1 researchers, 43% of TG3 researchers perceive

intersectoral mobility positive for career progression, although also a share of 19% of

TG3 researchers perceive intersectoral mobility as a negative factor for career

progression.

Country of current employment: Interestingly, international mobility is the factor that

is associated with the widest range between the highest and the lowest shares of

researchers perceiving it as positive for career progression across country groups. While

76% of researchers employed in BRICS countries think international mobility is positive,

only 58% of researchers employed in the US agree (see Table 19). This may be linked to

the fact that the US is the leading research environment, so that international mobility

may be less beneficial for US-based researchers. Regarding the other factors,

differentiating between country groups reveals only small variation: between 58% (other

countries) and 66% (US) of researchers perceive interdisciplinary mobility as a positive

factor for career progression. Similarly, the shares of researchers thinking that

alternative research output is a positive factor range between 61% (non-EU OECD) and

67% (other countries). The highest shares of researchers which consider intersectoral

mobility as a negative factor for career progression is among researchers employed in

the US and more generally in the group of Anglo Saxon countries (16% respectively).

Table 19: Perception of positive factors for career progression by country groups


Anglo- Saxon

US Non-EU

OECD BRICS Other

Anglo- Saxon

US Non-EU

OECD BRICS Other

Interdisciplinary mobility 61.5% 66.5% 60.3% 59.4% 57.6% 11.1% 10.4% 11.1% 8.4% 12.0%

International mobility 65.8% 58.2% 67.0% 75.8% 68.5% 4.0% 4.9% 4.1% 4.8% 8.0%

Intersectoral mobility 37.1% 32.2% 37.7% 45.6% 45.6% 15.9% 16.1% 15.4% 12.4% 12.5%

Research output 63.7% 68.8% 65.7% 72.2% 68.9% 11.7% 10.6% 10.5% 6.3% 6.2%


Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Share of researchers agreeing that these factors are regarded as positive or negative for

career progression in their home institution. Devoid of the share of researchers indicating that the factor is not relevant.

- Based on question 34: “In your experience would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for career progression in your home institution?”

- (n=1,387-1,446)

5.4.3. Skills for future career progression

Regarding their future careers (in and outside academia), the vast majority of

researchers in the MORE3 Global survey agree that skills for critical and autonomous

thinking (98%), decision making and problem solving (97%), communication and

presentation (96%), project management (94%), time management and networking

(93% respectively) and grant and/or proposal writing (92%) are essential for a

prosperous future career (see Figure 25).


October 2017 65

Figure 25: Perception of important skills for future research career

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 35: “Which skills do you consider important for your future research career

(in or outside academia)?”

- (n=1,727)

Target groups: The perception of importance of skills for future research careers is

rather homogeneous when the sample is split into the different target groups (see Figure

26). Only with respect to intellectual property rights (e.g. applying for patents),

collaboration with citizens, government and broader society, entrepreneurship, ethics,

negotiation and innovative digital skills (i.e. carrying out, disseminating, deploying and

transforming research through digital tools, networks and media) small differences

between target groups can be observed. For instance, while only 39% of European

researchers currently working outside Europe (TG1) perceive skills in IPR as important

for their future career, 51% of non-European researchers having worked in Europe in the

past (TG2) agree. Generally, European researchers currently working abroad (TG1)

attach less importance to digital skills, entrepreneurship, ethics and IPR than other target

groups, but emphasise people and time management, proposal and grant writing,

networking and communication skills instead.

97.8 97.395.7

93.8 92.6 92.6 92.0 91.689.0

83.9 83.6 83.3

70.8

57.0

53.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Thinking

Decisi

on making

Com

munic

atio

n skills

Proje

t manga

gement

Netw

orkin

g

Time m

anga

gement

Proposa

l writ

ing

Team

work

Ethic

s

Innova

tive d

igita

l skills

Colla

boratio

n with

oth

ers

People m

anag

ement

Negotia

tion

Entre

pre

neurship IP

R


October 2017 66

Figure 26: Perception of important skills for future research career by target groups


(in or outside academia)?” - (n=1,727)

Comparative perspective: Greater differences in researchers’ perception of the

importance of skills can be observed between researchers who have received respective

training in their past and researchers who have not received corresponding training. In

general, the shares of researchers perceiving certain skills as important for their future

research careers are higher among those researchers who actually received

corresponding training in their past. For instance, while only 46% of researchers who

have never received training in IPR think that it is an important skill for their future

career, 84% of researchers who have received training in IPR agree. Similarly, 50% of

researchers who have never had training in entrepreneurship perceive it as an important

skill in contrast to 87% of researchers who have received training in entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, some skills, like decision making and problem solving or critical and

autonomous thinking, are perceived as being important by the vast majority of

researchers, irrespective of whether respective training has been received before or not.

Co llaboration with other sCommunication skil ls

Decision making

Entrepreneurship

Ethics

IPR

Innovative digital skil ls

Nego tiationNetworking

People management

Projet mangagement

Proposal w rit ing

Teamwork

Thinking

Time mangagement

20

40

60

80

100





Center is at 0


October 2017 67

Table 20: Perception of important skills for future research career

No training Training

IPR 46.2% 83.8%

Communication 90.9% 97.3%

Decision making 93.2% 98.2%

Digital skills 79.6% 92.2%

Entrepreneurship 49.5% 86.8%

Ethics 71.7% 93.7%

Negotiation 67.3% 95.1%

Networking 88.4% 98.7%

People management 76.2% 95.2%

Project management 87.0% 98.1%

Proposal writing 88.2% 94.2%

Teamwork 88.5% 94.2%

Thinking 94.5% 97.5%

Time management 84.2% 97.7%


(in or outside academia)?” - (n=1,727)

5.4.4. Confidence in future career prospects

Researchers were asked how confident they feel about future prospects for their research

career. In the MORE3 Global survey, about 27% of all researchers feel very confident and

52% feel somewhat confident about their future prospects for their research careers (see

Figure 27). Only 4% of the respondents report that they very much lack confidence

about the prospects for their future research career and another 17% of researchers say

that they lack confidence.

Target groups: Some differences in the confidence levels of different target groups are

observable. In particular TG3, non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU but in

other non-EU countries, show the highest shares of (very) confident researchers with

respect to their future career prospects (see Figure 27). In total, 85% of TG3 researchers

are (very) confident about future career prospects, while only 75% of European

researchers currently working abroad (TG1) agree. In contrast, 21% of European

researchers currently working abroad (TG1) lack confidence about their future career,

while the percentage of researchers that agree is only half as much (11%) in the group

of TG3 researchers.


October 2017 68

Figure 27: Confidence in future career prospects by target groups


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263)

- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 36: “Overall, how confident do you feel about the future prospects for your

research career?”

Figure 116 in annex 6 adds to the impression that if any differences between confidence

levels of target groups exist then they arise from target groups TG3, non-EU researchers

who have worked abroad but not in the EU and TG1, European researchers currently

working outside Europe. The distribution of target groups across different confidence

levels is almost uniform, however in comparison to other confidence groups, TG3

researchers are more often included in the group of researchers feeling somewhat or

very confident about their future career, while TG1 researchers, the European

researchers currently abroad, are more often contained in the group of researchers that

lack confidence.

Career stages: Results of the MORE2 and MORE3 EU HE survey suggest that the level of

confidence in future research careers is also related to researchers’ uncertainty levels

due to their stage of professional rootedness and legal positions. The data of the MORE3

Global survey are therefore analysed by differentiating between different career stages

as well. Since the number of observations of first-stage researchers (R1) in the target

groups TG2 and TG3 are rather low (27 and 25 observations respectively), the two early

career stages (R1 and R2) are aggregated. The share of confident researchers in the

group of established researchers (R3) is similar to the share of confident leading

researchers (R4). Thus, we aggregate those two groups for simplicity as well. In line with

previous results, the share of researchers who lack confidence is the highest in the group

26.8

51.7

17.5

4.1

24.7

50.4

20.6

4.3

28.1

51.0

16.3

4.6

25.3

60.1

11.2

3.4

27.6

50.7

17.6

4.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Very confident Somewhat confident

Lack confident Very much lack confident


October 2017 69

of early-stage researchers (R1 and R2), while leading or established researchers (R4 and

R3) show higher levels of optimism about their future (see Figure 28). While in advanced

career stages (R3 and R4) no large differences between target groups can be observed,

the variation between target groups is higher in early career stages (R1 and R2). The

share of early-stage researchers confident with their future career perspectives is

particularly low among EU researchers currently working abroad (61%). In contrast, the

share of early-stage researchers feeling confident about their future career is high among

non-EU researchers (TG3 84%; TG2 71%; TG4 72%).

Figure 28: Confidence of researchers in future career prospects by career stage and target group


- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 36: “Overall, how confident do you feel about the future prospects for your

research career?” and question 10 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?”

Country of current employment: With respect to different country groups, only little

variation can be observed (see Figure 114 in annex 6). While the share of researchers

feeling (very) confident about their future career prospects is the highest in the group of

“other” countries, including Argentina, Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine, and in the US

(83% each), it is slightly lower in BRICS countries (76%), and non-EU OECD countries

(78%). Thus, the data do not confirm the general assumption that researchers are

feeling less confident in less developed countries.

60.7

39.3

71.3

28.8

83.6

16.4

72.0

28.0

85.2

14.8

82.5

17.5

86.2

13.8

82.1

17.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R1 and R2 R3 and R4

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Confident Not confident


October 2017 70

6. Working conditions in current position

Researchers, particularly academic researchers, experience a highly competitive working

environment. The “up-or-out” nature of academic research results in a high proportion of

researchers dropping out of research careers. While the specific “the winner-takes-it-all”

aspect of (academic) research might lead to undesired drop outs of highly talented

researchers, competition among researchers can enhance scientific productivity and lead

to new pioneering insights. However, this holds only if the selection criteria are largely

merit-based and if researchers are not leaving the academic labour market due to bad

working conditions or other individual characteristics like gender or ethnic minority

(Geuna - Shibayama, 201558).

Research careers are terminated not only because of low levels of productivity. Donowitz

et al., 200759, show that, despite high labour demand, the number of young American

physician-scientists is stagnating due to more attractive working conditions and secure

career paths outside academia. Moreover, especially when looking at high-tech

industries, university spin-offs can be an attractive alternative to academic careers

(Landry – Amara - Rherrad, 200660). The structure of academic career paths analysed in

the preceding section is hence only one determinant of the attractiveness of a research

system; working conditions are also very important.

In the MORE3 Global survey, researchers are asked about the characteristics of their

current employment and on their satisfaction with different conditions in their current

employment. As there are many working conditions potentially relevant for working as a

researcher, it is difficult to single out the main ones. MORE2 used a stated choice

approach to identify the most relevant working conditions.61 Based on the analysis of

these data by Janger & Nowotny (2016), the main working conditions are conceptualised

and grouped in three categories in MORE3, namely:

Working conditions not directly affecting scientific knowledge production, such as

conditions relevant for extrinsic pecuniary motivations to engage in a research

career (e.g. salary and pension entitlements), and working conditions affecting

social and content-specific motivations of a research career.

Working conditions affecting scientific knowledge production, such as research

funding, working with stimulating peers or career-path determined time horizons

available for implementing one’s research agenda.

Working conditions relevant for both knowledge production and pecuniary

motivations, such as career and mobility perspectives.

In this section, we only describe in detail characteristics of the contractual, employment

and remuneration situation of researchers. The details on perception of satisfaction with

other non-science related working conditions, science-related working conditions and

cross-cutting conditions will be presented in section 8.1.

58 Geuna, A., Shibayama, S., (2015) "Moving Out Of Academic Research: Why Scientists Stop Doing

Research?", in Geuna, A. (Ed.), Glob. Mobil. Res. Sci. Econ. Who Goes Why, Elsevier, pp. 271–303. 59 Donowitz, M., Germino, G., Cominelli, F., Anderson, J. M., (2007) "The attrition of young physician-

scientists: problems and potential solutions", Gastroenterology, 132(2), pp. 477–480. 60 Landry, Rejean, Nabil Amara, and Imad Rherrad, (2006) "Why are some university researchers more likely

to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities.", Research Policy, 35(10), pp. 1599-1615.

61 IDEA Consult et al, 2013. MORE2 - Support for continued data collection and analysis concerning mobility patterns and career paths of researchers, Final Report. European Commission, DG Research and Innovation.

And Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683.


October 2017 71

Box 4: Main research questions on working conditions

What are the main characteristics of employment of researchers (e.g. contractual

situation)?

How do researchers perceive their income level?

Are there any differences between researchers working inside and outside academia

with respect to their perception of their remuneration packages?

6.1. Characteristics of employment and contractual situation

Most researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey are currently employed in

Australia, the US and Canada, and a considerable share also work in New Zealand, Brazil

and South Africa (see Figure 29). Therefore, some parts of the analyses might be driven

to a certain extent by the working conditions of researchers in these countries. Of course,

this non-uniform distribution of researchers across different employment countries has to

be considered in the whole report, however, the following analyses rely on country of

employment (rather than, for instance, country of citizenship) and thus, it is worth

mentioning here the potential country bias of the results again. Sometimes a distinction

between certain groups of countries of employment is made in the following in order to

analyse results in the context of specific (national) research systems of country groups,

like the (non-EU) Anglo-Saxon countries. The assignment of countries to different groups

is presented in tables in Annex 5.

Figure 29: Researchers’ countries of employment


Notes: - Only countries where more than 2 researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey

are employed - Based on question 22: “Country of employment” - (n=1,727)

0

100

200

300

Australia

Unite

d State

s

Can

ada

New

Zeala

nd

Brazil

Sout

h Afric

a

Colombia

Japa

n

Mex

ico

Chil

e

Russ

ia

Turk

ey

Israel

Argent

ina

India

China

Singap

ore

Korea

, Sou

th

Thaila

nd

Ukrain

e

Indone

sia

Mala

ysia

Ecua

dor

Alger

ia

Egyp

t

Tunisia

Philip

pines

Hong

Kong


October 2017 72

Analogous to the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global survey includes questions

referring to researchers’ current employment position, where ‘employment position’ does

not only apply to researchers working as employees, but also to civil servants, students

etc. If researchers have more than one paid post, the main or primary one is considered.

6.1.1. Length of employment

On average, researchers that participated in the MORE3 Global survey have been

employed for 12 years (see Table 21).

Target groups: Differences between target groups are most evident between European

researchers currently working abroad (TG1) and non-EU researchers who have never

worked abroad (TG4): while the included TG1 researchers have been only employed for

on average 7 years at their current position, TG4 researchers have been employed for 14

years on average. One reason for these differences could be based on the differences in

the age structure of researchers of different target groups (see section 5). The share of

young researchers is significantly higher in the group of European researchers currently

working abroad (TG1) than in the group of non-mobile, non-EU researchers (TG4). In

general, younger researchers are more often mobile than older researchers. In contrast

to the relatively high shares of young European researchers currently working abroad

(65% are younger than 44 years) the share of non-EU researchers who have never

worked abroad and that are younger than 44 years is only 43%.

Table 21: Length of employment at current position (in years)

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 Total

Employment length (in years)

7.4 13.0 11.4 13.8 11.9


- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 21: “Employed since”

6.1.2. Contractual situation

Differences in the length of employment might also be based on differences with respect

to the contractual situation of researchers. 63% of the respondents have a permanent or

open-ended contract, 30% a fixed term contract and 7% have no contract or are self-

employed.

Target groups: While the share of researchers with permanent or open-ended contracts

is the lowest within the group of European researchers currently working outside Europe

(51% of TG1 researchers), the share of researchers having fixed-term contracts in other

target groups is partly twice as high (see Figure 118 in annex 7). 45% of TG1

researchers have fixed-term contracts in contrast to only 22% of non-EU researchers

who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3).

Country of current employment: There are no large differences regarding the

contractual situation of researchers between different country groups (see Figure 119 in

annex 7). The US might be an exception, as in comparison to other (non-EU) country

groups a higher share of researchers employed in the US have fixed-term contracts. 40%

of researchers employed in the US have fixed-term contracts in contrast to approx. 30%

of researchers in other country groups. This is not a result of different age structures.

The age structure in the US is rather similar to the group of Anglo-Saxon and non-EU


October 2017 73

OECD countries. Between 45% (Anglo-Saxon) and 47% (US) of researchers are below 44

years old. In BRICS (57%) and other countries (61%) the shares of researchers younger

than 44 years are even higher.

6.1.3. Type of position

The vast majority of researchers (91%) questioned in the MORE3 Global survey has a

full-time position (see Figure 30).

Target groups: The largest differences between target groups can be observed between

European researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1) and non-EU researchers

who have never worked abroad (TG4) (see Figure 30). The highest share of researchers

working full-time is that in target group TG1 (97% of European researchers working

abroad), while the lowest share of researchers that are full-time employed is in the group

of TG4 researchers (89% of non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad).

Figure 30: Distribution of researchers by type of position and target groups


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=226) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=157) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=755) - Based on question 24: “Type of position”

Gender and target groups: Similar to the MORE3 EU HE survey, in the MORE3 Global

survey the share of female researchers working part-time (12%) is higher than the share

of male researchers (6%); this also across all target groups (see Figure 31). With the

exception of the group of European female researchers currently working outside the EU

91.5

3.41.93.3

96.8

2.4

0.30.5

90.7

2.23.53.5

93.0

4.50.61.9

88.7

4.02.44.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Ful l-time Part-time, more than 50%

Part-time, 50% Part-time, less than 50%


October 2017 74

(TG1) the groups of non-EU female researchers are rather homogeneous with respect to

the type of position. The share of non-EU female researchers working full-time ranges

from 85% (in TG4) to 88% (TG3) and is thus a little bit lower than the respective share

of European female researchers currently working outside the EU (95%) or the shares of

male researchers working full-time (ranging from between 91% and 98%).

Figure 31: Distribution of researchers by type of position, target groups and gender

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 24: “Type of position” and question 2 “What is your gender?” - (n=1,513)

6.2. Remuneration packages

Researchers’ working conditions are shaped, among other factors, by the terms of

financial security and remuneration (Janger and Nowotny, 201662). Therefore, similar to

the MORE3 EU HE survey, some questions that address explicitly remuneration are

included in the MORE3 Global survey.

In total, almost one in four researchers participating in the MORE3 Global survey feels

well paid (23% of researchers), and half thinks that he or she is paid a reasonable salary

(49% of researchers) (see Figure 32). This means that the share of researchers

perceiving themselves as well or reasonably paid is rather similar to the respective share

in the MORE3 EU HE (it was only 5 percentage points lower).

62 Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683.

93.8

2.21.52.4

98.2

1.30.4

93.2

0.73.42.7

95.9

3.11.0

91.3

3.02.13.7

88.0

5.12.34.6

94.6

4.10.70.7

86.1

5.1

3.8

5.1

88.3

6.7

1.73.3

85.3

5.32.8

6.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female


Ful l-time Part-time, more than 50%

Part-time, 50% Part-time, less than 50%


October 2017 75

Target groups: Figure 32 shows some differences between the target groups. While the

share of researchers feeling well or reasonably paid is the highest among EU researchers

currently working abroad (80% of TG1 researchers), it drops remarkably when looking at

non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (66% of TG4 researchers feel well or

reasonably paid). In contrast, the share of researchers thinking that they are badly paid

and are struggling to make ends meet is twice as large in the group of non-EU non-

mobile researchers than in the group of EU researchers working abroad (9% of TG4

researchers in contrast to 4% of TG1 researchers). This result could be partly based on

higher levels of risk aversion or a more conservative attitude in the group of non-mobile

researchers.

Figure 32: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by target group


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 27: “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take

into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)? I consider myself to be...”

7.1

21.7

47.8

23.4

4.3

15.8

44.4

35.5

6.8

19.4

51.7

22.1

6.2

20.8

51.1

21.9

8.7

25.3

47.6

18.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Badly paid Sufficiently Paid

Reasonably paid Well paid


October 2017 76

Country of current employment: In terms of different country groups, Figure 33

indicates some variations in researchers’ perception of remuneration. In Anglo-Saxon

countries and non-EU OECD countries the shares of researchers who feel badly paid and

are struggling to make ends meet are particularly low (5%). Simultaneously, in those

countries the shares of researchers feeling well paid are rather high at 29% (Anglo-

Saxon) and 27% (Non-EU OECD). In contrast, the shares of researchers perceiving their

remuneration as bad are rather high in BRICS nations (12%) and ‘other’ countries,

including countries like Argentina, Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine (15%). Moreover, the

share of researchers being employed in BRICS countries and feeling well-paid is the

lowest among those country groups. Only 12% of researchers working in BRICS nations

think that they are well-paid.

Figure 33: Researchers’ perception of remuneration, by country group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 27: “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take

into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)?I consider myself to be...”

- (n=1,727)

Gender: Female and male researchers perceive their remuneration rather similarly (see

Figure 120 in annex 7). Small differences are observed regarding the share of

researchers feeling that they are paid a reasonable salary and researchers who think that

they are paid sufficiently to only make ends meet. A slightly higher share of male

researchers feel that they are paid reasonably (51% of male researchers in contrast to

44% female researchers), while the share of female researchers feeling that they are

paid sufficiently to only make ends meet is higher than the respective share of male

researchers (24% of female researchers in contrast to 20% of male researchers).

4.7

18.5

47.8

29.1

5.9

21.6

48.7

23.7

4.5

17.9

50.1

27.4

11.9

31.9

44.7

11.6

14.5

27.1

39.7

18.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





October 2017 77

Career stages: The distribution of researchers’ perception of remuneration differs

considerably between career stages (see Figure 34). While the share of researchers who

feel badly paid is rather high in the group of first-stage researchers (19% of R1

researchers), within the group of leading researchers this share drops considerably (less

than 4% of R4 researchers). Vice versa, the share of early stage researchers feeling well

paid is rather low (7% of R1 researchers) in comparison to the group of leading

researchers who feel well paid (35% of R4 researchers). Overall, with each higher career

level, beginning from R1 and ending in R4, the shares of researchers rather satisfied with

their remuneration increases, while at the same time the shares of researchers

dissatisfied with their salary decreases, which is likely to reflect pay schemes based on

seniority.

Figure 34: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by career stages


into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)? I consider myself to be...” and question 10 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?”

- (n=1,727)

Dual position: In line with the results of the MORE3 EU HE survey, having a dual

position or working at only one position also makes some differences in researchers’

perception of remuneration. While only 27% of researchers working at one position feel

badly paid or only sufficiently paid to make ends meet, 39% of researchers having a dual

position, i.e. researchers that are employed by more than one institution/organisation at

the same time, would agree (see Figure 121 in annex 8). Conversely, more than seven

out of ten researchers employed in only one institution feel reasonably or well paid

(73%), while in the group of researchers having dual positions only six out of ten

researchers would agree (61%). However, given the available data it is not clear whether

these differences might be explained by the fact that remuneration for part-time

18.5

40.2

34.0

7.3

8.4

28.0

46.4

17.3

4.3

16.7

53.1

25.9

3.6

12.6

49.2

34.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





October 2017 78

positions is less attractive or whether potentially less attractive remuneration in

academia tends to force researchers to take up a second job (outside academia).

Type of position: Figure 35 clearly hints at differences in the perception of

remuneration between researchers with different types of positions. 19% of part-time

researchers feel badly paid. Among the group of part-time workers, the share who think

that they are badly paid is particularly high amongst those employed with less than 50%

working time (22%). This is in contrast to researchers with a full-time position, of which

less than 6% think that they are badly paid. Vice versa, while 25% of researchers with

full-time positions think that they are well-paid, only 17% of part-time researchers

agree.

Figure 35: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by type of position


Notes: - Only researcher who are not working in a dual position. - Based on question 27: “How do you feel about your remuneration package (if you do not take

into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)?I consider myself to be...” and question 24 “Type of position”

- (n=1,513)

Contractual situation: In terms of researchers’ contractual situation, differences with

respect to their perception of remuneration can be observed as well. Figure 122

demonstrates that the group of researchers feeling well-paid is the largest among

researchers with permanent contracts (28%), followed by researchers with fixed-term

contracts (18%).

5.5

20.2

49.5

24.8

18.6

25.6

38.8

17.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Full time Part time




October 2017 79

6.2.1. Researchers working in academia

Similar to the MORE3 EU HE survey, 57% of researchers working in the higher education

sector feel more badly paid compared to people with comparable skills and experience

working outside academia (see Figure 36). 30% of researchers feel there is little

difference and only 14% of researchers perceive themselves as better paid than their

non-academic counterparts.

Target group: The highest share of researchers feeling paid worse than people with

comparable skills and experience outside academia can be found in the group of non-EU

researchers who have never worked abroad (60% of TG4 researchers, see Figure 36).

The group of non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past show the lowest

share those who feel more badly paid (50% of TG2 researchers) and the highest share of

researchers that feel better paid than people outside academia (20% of TG2

researchers). Overall, about 30% think that remuneration packages within and outside

academia are rather similar.

Figure 36: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by target

groups



- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=751) - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Based on question 29: “How would you compare your remuneration package in your higher

education position to that of people with comparable skills and experience outside academia?” - (n=1,394)

56.9

29.6

13.6

57.9

31.8

10.4

49.5

30.7

19.7

51.0

34.9

14.1

60.0

27.0

13.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Worse Similar

Better


October 2017 80

Career stage: Interestingly, researchers less often feel less well paid than their non-

academic counterparts later in their career stage, a result in contrast to the MORE3 EU

HE survey. While 49% of R4 and 56% of R3 researchers feel worse paid, the proportion

of R1 researchers is 65% (see Figure 37). Conversely, in terms of the share of those

researchers feeling better paid, the average increases from 12% in R1 to 18% in R4.

Figure 37: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by career stage

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector. - Based on question 29: “How would you compare your remuneration package in your higher

education position to that of people with comparable skills and experience outside academia?”

and question 10 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” - (n=1,394)

Country of current employment: Looking at researchers employed at different country

groups gives a hint of small regional differences (see Figure 38). While the share of

researchers feeling worse paid than their non-academic counterparts is the highest in the

US (67%), it is the lowest in the group of ‘other countries’, including e.g. Argentina,

Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine (52%). One possible explanation could be more reliable

and constant salaries in government-financed institutions in comparison to the private

sector in some less developed countries: Outside options are usually better in

economically-developed countries.

65.0

23.3

11.7

63.8

26.2

9.9

55.5

30.9

13.6

48.7

33.8

17.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Worse Similar

Better


October 2017 81

Figure 38: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by country

groups


- Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector.

- Based on question 29: “How would you compare your remuneration package in your higher education position to that of people with comparable skills and experience outside academia?”

- (n=1,394)

6.2.2. Researchers working outside academia

In contrast to the MORE3 EU HE survey, in the MORE3 Global survey researchers working

outside academia are also included. As a result, it is possible to clarify whether the

individual perception regarding one’s own remuneration in comparison to others is biased

according to the adage ‘the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence’ or

whether the perception of researchers in academia reflects a general impression.

Therefore, in the MORE3 Global survey researchers working outside academia are asked

how they compare their remuneration package to that of people with comparable skills

and experience with those working in academia. Figure 39 supports the results found

above. From the perspective of researchers working outside academia, the proportion of

researchers feeling worse paid and better paid are reversed: Only 30% of researchers

working outside academia perceive their remuneration as worse than the remuneration of

people working inside academia, while 42% think that remuneration is similar and 27%

feel even better paid.

Target groups: Unfortunately, it is not possible to analyse single target groups

separately, as the sample size is too small, particularly for target groups TG2 and TG3.

Thus, we aggregate target groups TG1 to TG3 in order to analyse possible differences

between mobile and non-mobile researchers. Overall, with respect to the perception of

being worse paid than people in academia differences between the groups of non-mobile

59.7

29.0

11.4

67.0

22.9

10.1

56.4

30.5

13.1

62.2

26.5

11.3

51.9

28.5

19.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anglo US OECD BRICS Other

Worse Similar

Better


October 2017 82

researchers (TG4) and mobile researchers (TG1, TG2 and TG3) can be observed (see

Figure 39). While 35% of non-mobile researchers perceive their remuneration as worse

than that of their colleagues inside academia, only 24% of mobile researchers agree. The

share of researchers thinking that they are paid rather similar salaries to their academic

counterparts is equally large in both groups (between 42% and 43%). In contrast, the

shares of researchers thinking that they are better paid than researchers with similar

skills inside academia is higher in the group of mobile researchers (34%) than in the

group of non-mobile researchers (22%).

Figure 39: Perception of remuneration compared to researchers in academia by target groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=184) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=44) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=22) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=13)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=105) - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is not at a university or in the HEI sector. - Based on question 30: “How would you compare your remuneration package in your position

outside academia to that of people with comparable skills and experience in academia?”

Career stages: Due to the small sample size of non-academic researchers in the MORE3

global survey it is not possible to distinguish between single career stages when

analysing researchers’ perception of remuneration compared to researchers inside

academia. Therefore, we aggregated R1 and R2 researchers as well as R3 and R4

researchers. However, Figure 40 shows only very small differences between those two

groups. 32% of R1 and R2 researchers and 30% of R3 and R4 researchers feel worse

paid than their academic counterparts, while 25% of R1 and R2 researchers and 29% of

30.4

42.4

27.2

24.1

41.8

34.2

35.2

42.9

21.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total TG1, TG2 & TG3 TG4

Worse Sim ilar

Better


October 2017 83

R3 and R4 researchers perceive their remuneration better than that of researchers with

similar skills inside academia.

Figure 40: Perception of remuneration compared to researchers in academia by career stages

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is not at a university or in the HEI sector. - Based on question 30: “How would you compare your remuneration package in your position

outside academia to that of people with comparable skills and experience in academia?” and

question 10 “In which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” - (n=184)

31.9

43.1

25.0

29.5

42.0

28.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R1 & R2 R3 & R4

Worse Similar

Better


October 2017 84

7. Mobility, collaboration and networking

In the MORE3 Global survey, researchers were questioned about their mobility patterns

including both international, intersectoral and interdisciplinary mobility. As the results of

the survey are not based on a representative sample it is not possible to provide

indicators on the share of foreign researchers in a certain country. Thus, this section

contains all findings regarding mobility and collaboration of researchers currently working

outside Europe. It focuses on the international mobility experience as a researcher after

one has obtained the highest educational qualification (PhD or other). For researchers

who are currently still working on a PhD, mostly R1 (doctoral), this concerns pre-PhD

mobility. For R2 (post-doctoral), R3 (established) and R4 (leading) researchers this

concerns post-PhD mobility.

The section is divided in four main sections:

International mobility (section 7.1)

Intersectoral mobility (section 7.2)

Interdisciplinary mobility (section 7.3)

International collaboration (section 7.4)

Box 5: Main research questions on international, intersectoral, interdisciplinary

mobility and collaboration

International mobility

To which countries do they go and for how long do they stay? What is the pattern

of mobility to Europe? How long do they stay in Europe?

When they leave Europe after a stay there, to which countries do they go?

Which types of short-term work-related travel are more frequent among

researchers?

What contacts do they maintain with the European research community when

working outside Europe and what contacts do they have with the non-European

research community when they return to Europe? What links do researchers

maintain with Europe after they leave?

Intersectoral mobility

In which sectors do researchers work?

To what extent have they worked in a different sector before?

Is intersectoral mobility considered by researchers as a positive factor for

recruitment and career progression? Does having a previous intersectoral mobility

experience affect this perception?


In which fields of knowledge do researchers work?

To what extent do they have experience in another field of knowledge/discipline?

In which fields of knowledge is interdisciplinary mobility more frequent?

Is interdisciplinary mobility considered by researchers as a positive factor for

recruitment and career progression? Does having a previous interdisciplinary

mobility experience affect this perception?

Collaboration

To what extent do researchers collaborate in their research with researchers from

other fields of knowledge?

To what extent do researchers collaborate in their research with researchers

working in organisations located in another country?

To what extent do researchers collaborate in their research with researchers

working in a different sector?

Are these collaborations the result of a previous mobility experience?


October 2017 85

7.1. International mobility

Global mobility patterns are interesting to map as they reflect the relative attractiveness

of global regions and countries as research areas. It is difficult though to obtain a picture

of the migration patterns of researchers per country (see Franzoni, 201263 and section

7.1.1.7 of this chapter) mainly because it is difficult to track individuals once they have

become mobile. To overcome this difficulty, a number of studies have used bibliometric

analysis to analyse the global mobility patterns of researchers and the consequences of

mobility. One example is the GlobSci survey, which has collected information of research

scientists in 16 countries and performed a cross-country analysis. The GlobSci survey

highlighted the observation that mobile scientists are more likely to engage in

international collaborations, and tend to “exhibit superior performances in international

collaborations than natives”64 with no prior experience of mobility65.

In the MORE3 Global survey, a comprehensive approach was taken including all fields of

science and all countries outside Europe.

This section discusses international mobility and the analysis is structured according to

the types of international mobility and collaboration:

International long-term (> 3 months) mobility (section 7.1.1)

International short-term (< 3 months) mobility (section 7.1.2)

Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits (section 7.1.3)

Networking (section 7.1.4)

63 C. Franzoni, G. Scellato and P. Stephan. Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature

biotechnology, 30(12): 1250-1253, 2012) 64 Scellato, G., Franzoni, C., Stephan, P. Mobile scientists and international networks. No. w18613. National

Bureau of Economic Research, 2012. 65 The GlobSci project had some limitations: First, respondents were selected only from published articles –

and, hence, younger researchers are less likely to be selected; and, second, it only covered some countries and some fields of science: for instance, the humanities and social sciences were not covered.


October 2017 86

7.1.1. International long-term mobility of > 3 months

7.1.1.1. Mobility patterns

The table below provides an overview of the respondents and their mobility pattern. The

sample consists of 417 EU researchers and 1,310 non-EU researchers.

Table 22: Number of respondents with > 3 month international mobility experience

Less than ten years

ago

More than ten years

ago Never Total

EU researchers (TG1) 417 66

67 417

Mobile in the EU 196 / Mobile outside the EU 417 /

Non-EU researchers (TG2 and TG3) 441 211 658 1,310 Mobile towards the EU only (TG2) 201 /

Mobile towards EU and non-EU countries (TG2) 62 Mobile towards non-Europe (TG3) 178 /

Total 858 211 658 1,727

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 37 “After gaining you highest education qualification (PhD or other), how

would you typify your international mobility experience?” and question 38 “In the past 10 years, have you moved for more than 3 months to work in: At least one European country – At least one non-European country.


- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never been mobile (n=869)

858 of the 1,727 respondents indicated that they had been mobile (after gaining their

highest educational qualification) for more than 3 months in the past 10 years.

417 of these 858 mobile researchers are EU researchers who currently work outside

the EU (TG1).

441 of these 858 mobile researchers are non-EU researchers:

263 non-EU researchers have been mobile towards the EU in the past (TG2)

178 non-EU researchers have been not been mobile towards the EU, but to

other non-EU countries (TG3)

53% of these 178 non-EU researchers have been mobile towards the EU

more than ten years ago68.

869 non-EU researchers have not been mobile in the past ten years:

Of which 211 have been mobile more than 10 years ago

79% of the 211 researchers have been mobile towards the EU more

than ten years ago.69

Of which 658 have never been mobile (after obtaining their highest

educational qualification)

66 81 responses were obtained by EU researchers who were mobile more than 10 years ago. 67 132 respondents were obtained by researchers with EU citizenship who were never mobile (but are currently

working outside the EU). A large share of them indicated to have a double citizenship (EU and non-EU). 68 Based on question 69 “Have you been to Europe more than 10 years ago?” 69 Based on question 69 “Have you been to Europe more than 10 years ago?”


October 2017 87

7.1.1.1.1. International mobility pattern by nationality

More detailed Information on the current location of the researchers in the different

target groups is provided below:

The respondents with a European nationality and who are currently working abroad

(TG1) are mainly located in Australia and in the United States, followed by Japan,

Canada and New Zealand (Table 55 in annex 8). In terms of their country of origin,

the largest share of researchers within this target group originates from the United

Kingdom, followed by Italy, Germany and France (Table 56 in annex 8).

The respondents with a non-EU nationality and previous experience of working in

the EU (TG2) are mainly located in Australia, followed by Canada, Brazil and New

Zealand. (Table 57 in annex 8).

The respondents with a non-EU nationality but without previous working experience

in the EU are mainly located in Australia followed by Canada and the United States

(Table 58 in annex 8).

7.1.1.1.2. International mobility with change of employer

45% of the mobile researchers indicated that they have changed employer in one of their

long-term international moves in the past ten years. A change of employer is sometimes

also referred to as job-to-job mobility in the literature.

Target groups: When looking at the differences across target groups, the highest level

of employer mobility is found amongst the EU researchers who are currently working

outside the EU (TG1) (Table 23).

Country of citizenship: The same is observed in Figure 41, where employer mobility by

country of citizenship is shown. Within the group of EU researchers who are currently

working outside the EU (TG1), UK researchers are the ones that engage most frequently

at least once in international mobility with a change of employer. Within the group of

mobile non-EU researchers (TG2 and TG3), Australian researchers engage most

frequently and at least once in international mobility with a change of employer. These

findings should be taken with caution, since only the countries with more than 30

respondents have been considered for the analysis at the level of the country of

citizenship.

Table 23: International mobility with change of employer

Employer

mobility

Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU 44.7%

TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU 58.4%

TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past 31.7%

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU 37.3% Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 45 “Did you change employer on this step?” - (n =696)


October 2017 88

Figure 41: International mobility with change of employer as share of > 3 month

international mobility, in the past ten years, by country of citizenship.


would you typify your international mobility experience?” question 45 “Did you change

employer in this step?” and question 5 “What is your country of citizenship?”

- (n =382) - Only considers countries where 30 or more researchers have their citizenship.

7.1.1.2. Mobility flows and moves

In total, 1,245 moves were registered by the respondents in the survey: 645 were EU

moves and 600 were non-EU moves (Table 24). A total of 1,080 moves entailed a change

towards countries different than the country of citizenship.

Table 24: Overview of mobility flow

EU

moves Non-EU moves

Total

TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU 273 297 570


372 103 457


200 200

Total 645 600 1,245


- Based on question 39 “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves taken in the last 10 years of your research career.

- (n= 1,245)

22.227.3

30.4

50.052.852.9

55.658.7

63.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Brazil

Unite

d Sta

tes

Can

ada

Spain

Austra

lia

Franc

e

Ger

man

yIta

ly

Unite

d Kin

gdom


October 2017 89

Employer change: 36% of the moves (towards a country other than the country of

citizenship) concerns a change of employer. The EU researchers currently working

outside the EU most are the ones who have most frequently engaged in mobility with a

change of employer (48%), followed by the non-EU researchers who have worked abroad

but not in the EU (32%), and by the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in

the past (26%). This might indicate that EU researchers abroad leave the EU more

frequently to find a new job, whereas non-EU researchers might leave their countries

more often for academic visits abroad.

Table 25: Overview of mobility flows with employer change

No employer change

Employer change

Total


239 (52.3%)

218 (47.7%)

457


334 (73.9%)

118 (26.1%)

452

TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked

abroad but not in the EU

116

(67.8%)

55

(32.2%) 171

Total 689

(63.8%) 391

(36.2%) 1,080


Notes: - Based on question 45 “Did you change employer in this step”? - (n = 1,080)

For TG1 – EU researchers - the largest share of moves with employer change concerns

moves towards non-EU countries (“non-EU moves”). The opposite can be observed for

non-EU researchers (TG2): 75% of the moves with employer change concern a move

towards the EU. It is thus more common to change employer if you move outside the EU

for EU researchers and if you move towards the EU for non-EU researchers.

Table 26: Overview of mobility flows with employer change : EU versus non-EU

moves

EU moves Non-EU moves Total


83 (38.1%)

135 (61.9%)

218


88 (74.5%)

30 (25.4%)

118


0 55

(100%) 55

Total 171

(43.7%) 220

(56.3%) 391

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 45 “Did you change employer in this step”? - (n = 1,080)

7.1.1.3. Destination countries

The US is the most popular destination country of the sample of researchers currently

working outside the EU (16%). When international mobility is seen as an indicator of

attractiveness, this underscores the perception of the US system as attractive (see

section 8). In Europe, the United Kingdom (10%), Germany (9%) and France (8%) are

the most popular destinations. This is in line with the most popular destination countries

amongst researchers currently working in the EU of the MORE3 EU HEI survey. Below, a

more detailed analysis of the destination countries of the different target groups is

provided.


October 2017 90

Mobility flows of EU researchers (TG1)

An overview of the current location of EU researchers working abroad in the sample is

provided in Figure 42:

The largest share of the respondents of EU researchers are currently working in

Australia (19%) and US (17%), followed by Japan (14%) and Canada (13%).

The main inflows in the US originate from Italy, Germany and France. The main

inflows in Australia originate from the United Kingdom, Germany, Benelux and

France.

Figure 42: Map of current location of EU researchers abroad


- Based on question 22:”Country of current employment?” - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more during the last ten years to another

country than the country of citizenship of the researcher. - The following regions in the EU are applied: France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Benelux,

Scandinavia, EU13 and the rest of EU15. - The following regions outside the EU are applied: US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand,

China, Russia, rest of Asia, Middle East, Brazil, rest of South America, central America and

Africa. - (n = 457).

Of the EU researchers currently working abroad, 25% has only engaged in EU mobility

before moving outside the EU (for their current employment), 47% has only engaged in

non-EU mobility and 28% has engaged in both EU and non-EU mobility before.

A share of the EU researchers currently working outside the EU thus have undergone

non-EU mobility previously. Some interesting observations from the mobility flows

outside the EU can be drawn:

About 45% of the moves outside the EU are towards the United States (35%) and

Canada (10%);

Australia and New Zealand also account for a large share of the moves (17%);


October 2017 91

Japan (11%) is by far the most popular destination in Asia, followed by Singapore

(5%) and China (4%);

Comparing regions/continents: North America (45%), Asia (23%) an Oceania

(18%) account for the largest share of outward mobility moves while mobility

towards South America (7%), Central America (4%) and Africa (2%) is more

limited.

Figure 43: Map of mobility flows from the EU towards non-EU countries


- Counts of moves from EU-countries towards non-EU countries by EU researchers who are currently working outside the EU.

- Based on question 39 “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves taken in the last 10 years of your research career.

- With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more during the last ten years to another country than the country of citizenship of the researcher.

- The following regions in the EU are applied: France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Benelux, Scandinavia, EU13 and the rest of EU15

- The following regions outside the EU are applied: US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, China, Russia, rest of Asia, Middle East, Brazil, rest of South America, central America and Africa

- (n = 273) - Only flows of 3 moves or more are presented

Table 59 in annex 8 provides an overview of the mobility moves (40% of the total

moves) within the EU of the EU researchers who currently work outside the EU. 52% of

the researchers currently working outside the EU has engaged in EU mobility before. The

majority of EU researchers has already been mobile towards the United Kingdom (25%),

Germany (13%) and France (13%).


October 2017 92

Mobility flows of non-EU researchers towards EU-destinations

Figure 44 provides an overview of the flows from non-EU researchers towards the EU.

Germany was the most popular destination (15% of the EU moves) followed by France

(14%), United Kingdom (13%) and Spain (10%).

Figure 44: Map of mobility flows from non-EU countries towards the EU

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Count of moves from non-EU countries to the EU by non-EU researchers who have worked in

the EU in the past. - Based on question 39 “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves taken in

the last 10 years of your research career. - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more during the last ten years to another


Scandinavia, EU13 and the rest of EU15 - The following regions outside the EU are applied: US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand,

China, Russia, rest of Asia, Middle East, Brazil, rest of South America, central America and Africa.

- (n = 372). - Only flows of 3 moves or more are presented.


October 2017 93

Mobility flows of non-EU researchers who are mobile but not towards the EU

(TG3)

The United States is an important destination country; 30% of the moves of non-EU

researchers who have been mobile but not towards the EU was directed towards

the US. The main regions of origin of these researchers were Australia and New

Zealand, Asia and Africa.

Also Canada and Australia and New Zealand are important destination countries; a

large share of the researchers originate from Asia (incl. China).

Figure 45: Map of mobility flow from non-EU countries towards other non-EU countries

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Count of moves from non-EU countries to other non-EU by non-EU researchers who have been

mobile but not towards the EU. - Based on question 39 “Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves taken in

the last 10 years of your research career”. - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more during the last ten years to another


Scandinavia, EU13 and the rest of EU15

- The following regions outside the EU are applied: US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, China, Russia, rest of Asia, Middle East, Brazil, rest of South America, central America and Africa .

- (n = 171). - Only flows of 3 moves or more are presented.

Table 27 provides an overview of the results of the GlobSci survey (2012)70 with respect

to countries where more than 10% of the workforce originates from a foreign country.

70 Giuseppe Scellato, Chiara Franzoni, Paula Stephan Mobile Scientists and International Networks,

NBER Working paper No. 18613, December 2012.

http://www.nber.org/papers/18613


October 2017 94

The data of the MORE3 Global survey confirms the following observations: A large share

of inflow in Australia originates from the United Kingdom (12%) and in the UK a large

share of inflow originates from Italy (12%).

Additional observations are:

France is a destination country for researchers from Brazil (11%) and Canada

(19%)

Germany is a destination country for researchers from Australia (14%) and Brazil

(11%)

Spain is a destination country for researchers from Brazil (18%)

The UK is a destination country for researchers from Australia (13%), Italy (12%)

and Spain (12%)

The United States is a destination country for researchers from Germany (9%),

France (8%), Italy (8%) and Spain (8%).

It is important to interpret the results with care; about a quarter of the sample consists

of EU-researchers who currently work outside the EU. This possibly explains that the

findings of this MORE3 Global survey observe more mobility directed to or originating

from the EU compared to the findings of the GlobSci survey in Table 27 below.

Table 27: Results of “foreign born scientists: mobility patterns for sixteen countries”

Country of work or study in 2011

Proportion in foreign country at 18 (%)

Countries supplying >= 10% of the workforce (%)

Australia 44.5% UK (21.1%)

China (12.5%)

Belgium 18.2% Germany (15.2%) France (15.2%)

Italy (13%)

Brazil 7.1%

Argentina (16%) France (14%)

Colombia (12%) Peru (12%)

Canada 46.9%

UK (13.5%)

US (13.5%) China (10.9%)

Denmark 21.8% Germany (24.4%)

France 17.3% Italy (13.8%)

Germany 23.2% None

India 0.8% Not computable

Italy 3% France (13%)

Germany (11.1%) Spain (11.1%)

Japan 5% China (33.7%)

South Korea (11.6%)

Netherlands 27.7% Germany (14.6%)

Italy (12.5%)

Spain 7.3%

Argentina (12.6%)

France (10.3%) Italy (10.3%)

Sweden 37.6% Germany (11.9%)

Russian Fed. (10.2%)

Switzerland 56.7% Germany (36.9%)

United Kingdom 32.9% Germany (15.2%)

Italy (10.4%)

United States 38.4% China (16.9%) India (12.3%)

Source: Giuseppe Scellato, Chiara Franzoni, Paula Stephan. Mobile Scientists and International Networks, NBER Working paper No. 18613, December 2012



October 2017 95

7.1.1.4. Duration of long-term mobility of more than three months

Figure 46 provides an overview of the duration of the moves of three months or more of

researchers who currently work outside Europe. 47% of the moves lasted less than six

months. The duration pattern of long-term moves is in the same line as the results of the

MORE3 EU HE survey.

Target groups: For the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past ten

years this share is 58% while it is 36% for the EU researchers who currently work

outside Europe. This last group of researchers has the highest share of moves - which is

over three years, compared to the other groups. This is consistent with the higher share

of employer mobility in this group (see section 7.1.1.1.2), which might indicate that a

substantial share of EU researchers abroad intends to pursue an academic career abroad

and does not just stay for academic exchange programmes.

Figure 46: Duration of moves


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=171) - Based on question 44 “What was the duration of each step”?

- Distribution of moves by target groups - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another

country than the country of citizenship of the researcher

Duration of EU and non-EU moves

When EU researchers (TG1) engage in moves outside the EU, the duration of this move is

more frequently for more than one year (50%) than when they move inside the EU

(39%).

46.5

18.3

10.1

9.0

16.1

35.9

18.4

10.1

10.1

25.6

58.2

17.7

9.5

7.7

6.9

43.9

19.9

11.7

9.4

15.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total TG1 TG2 TG3

3 months to 6 months + 6 months to 1 year

+ 1 year to 2 years + 2 year to 3 years

Over 3 years


October 2017 96

Target groups: The duration of the moves of non-EU researchers who have been to the

EU in the past is on average shorter. The pattern between EU and non-EU moves is very

similar.

Figure 47: Duration of EU- and non-EU-moves


Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=457) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452) - Based on question 44 “What was the duration of each step”? - Distribution of moves - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


7.1.1.5. Contract type of long-term mobility of more than three months

About 47% of the moves concern fixed-term contracts (of which about half are fixed

term contracts up to one year. 9% of the moves concern permanent/open contracts and

22% indicated that they have no contract. This is in line with the results of the MORE3

EU HEI survey, where the largest share of moves also concerned fixed-term contracts.

Career stages: Of the respondents who indicated that they do not have a contract; 26%

are R1, 36% R2, 29% R3 and 8% R4.

40.2

20.7

10.3

10.3

18.5

33.0

16.8

9.9

9.9

30.4

58.9

18.8

9.4

6.5

6.5

55.0

12.5

10.0

13.8

8.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TG1: EU moves TG1: Non-EU moves TG2: EU moves TG2: Non-EU moves

TG1 TG2

3 months to 6 months + 6 months to 1 year

+ 1 year to 2 years + 2 year to 3 years

Over 3 years


October 2017 97

Figure 48: Contract type of moves


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU (n=171) - Based on question 46 “What was the type of contract in each step?”

- Distribution of moves by target groups - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


Contract duration: When cross-analysing the contract type and the duration of the

moves (see Table 28), it is clear the majority of the moves without a contract (82%)

concern shorter-term moves of less than one year. 63% of the moves with

permanent/open-ended contracts concerns moves of over one year.

Table 28: Contract type versus duration of moves

Fixed-term

contract Permanent/

open-ended contract No contract Other

3 months to 6 months 32.0% 26.0% 63.4% 70.0%

+ 6 months to 1 year 18.0% 11.0% 18.9% 21.7%

+ 1 year to 2 year 14.8% 8.0% 5.9% 4.8%

+ 2 year to 3 year 13.7% 13.0% 5.0% 0.9%

+ 3 year 21.5% 42.0% 6.7% 2.6%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,080) - Based on question 46 “What was the type of contract in each step?” and question 44 “What

was the duration of each step”?

Contract type of EU- and non-EU-moves

25.6

9.3

9.6

2.9

9.3

22.0

21.3

22.1

10.1

13.6

4.6

11.4

24.1

14.2

28.3

9.1

4.91.16.6

21.7

28.3

28.1

7.6

11.7

2.9

10.5

17.5

21.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total TG1 TG2 TG3

Fixed-term up to 1 year Fixed-term >1-2 years

Fixed-term >2-4 years Fixed-term >4 years

Permanent /open-ended contract No contract (regarded as a student)

Other


October 2017 98

EU researchers who are mobile inside the EU frequently engage in mobility without a

contract (31%); about 5% engage in mobility with a permanent contract and 50% with a

fixed-term contract. When engaging in mobility towards non-EU countries, the share of

permanent contracts (19%) is higher than compared to EU moves. The share of fixed-

term contracts is similar (about 50%). Moves without a contract are less common for

non-EU moves (19%) than for EU moves (31%).

Target groups: For non-EU researchers (TG2) the types of contracts between EU and

non-EU moves is rather similar. Non-EU researchers slightly more frequently engage in a

move without contract when it concerns EU moves than when it concerns non-EU moves

(5 percentage points difference).

Figure 49: Frequency of EU- and non-EU-moves

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=457) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452)

- Based on question 46 “What was the type of contract in each step?” - Distribution of moves - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


7.1.1.6. Destination sector of long-term mobility of more than three months

The main sector of employment of the different moves is university or other higher

education institutes. This is very similar across the different target groups (> 80%). 11%

of the international moves are related to moves towards a public or government sector.

Target groups: Researchers who have been abroad but not towards the EU (TG3)

engage more frequently in mobility towards the private (not-for-profit) sector (7%)

compared than the other target groups (2-3%).

25.5

8.2

14.7

2.75.4

31.0

12.5

19.8

11.4

12.8

5.9

15.4

19.4

15.4

28.8

8.9

4.31.36.2

22.6

28.0

26.3

10.0

7.5

8.8

17.5

30.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


TG1 TG2

Fixed-term up to 1 year Fixed-term >1-2 years

Fixed-term >2-4 years Fixed-term >4 years

Permanent /open-ended contract No contract (regarded as a student)

Other


October 2017 99

Figure 50: Destination sector of moves


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU (n=171) - Based on question 47 “What was the destination sector?”

- Distribution of moves by target groups (n = 1,080) - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


Contract type: Comparing across sectors, the share of permanent contracts is highest

when moves are towards the private sector (18%) and the share of fixed-term contracts

is highest when moves are towards the public or government sector (53%).

Table 29: Destination sector versus contract type

University or

other HEI

Public or

government

sector

Private sector Other

Fixed-term

contracts 47.3% 52.8% 47.5% 20%

Permanent

contracts 9.4% 4.9% 18.0% 5.0%

No contract 21.3% 25.2% 18.0% 45.0%

Other 22.0% 17.1% 16.4% 30.0%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017)

Notes:

- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,080) - Based on question 47 “What was the destination sector?” and question 46 “What was the type

of contract in each step?”

81.1

11.4

3.6

81.0

12.5

3.3

81.6

11.1

2.7

80.1

9.4

7.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total TG1 TG2 TG3

University or other higher education institution Public or government sector

Private, not-for-profit sector Private industry: large

Private industry: SME or start-up Other


October 2017 100

Destination of EU and non-EU moves

Moves inside or towards the EU more frequently concern moves towards the public or

government sectors than moves outside the EU - this for both TG1 and TG2.

Figure 51: Destination of EU- and non-EU-moves


Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=457) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=452) - Based on question 47 “What was the destination sector?” - Distribution of moves - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


7.1.1.7. Estimation of EU researchers currently working outside Europe

In the following, the estimation of the number of EU researchers in a series of non-EU

countries will be provided: US, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Chile71. The

Global survey is not representative and therefore the estimation cannot be based on the

survey results, but requires the use of secondary data instead.

This chapter first presents the relevant data available. Next, the methodology and all

necessary assumptions related to our approach are highlighted. Third, some of the most

important limitations in the estimation of the number of EU researchers are discussed.

Next, the results are provided, first with some insights on the number of EU28

71 No estimates are provided for China, India and Brazil as consistent data sources are not available for these

countries.

78.3

14.7

2.7

82.8

11.0

3.7

81.5

11.8

2.4

82.5

7.5

3.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


TG1 TG2

University or other higher education institution Public or government sector

Private, not-for-profit sector Private industry: large

Private industry: SME or start-up Other


October 2017 101

researchers in some selected countries and of EU28 doctoral candidates abroad (the most

complete sources are available for this career stage) before we present our estimations

of the number of EU researchers abroad in selected countries.

Data and descriptive statistics on EU-born researchers abroad

Given that the data on EU researchers outside the EU is typically incomplete and scarce,

the method followed for the estimation is based on a triangulation of sources. Official

statistics are complemented with the input from the national contacts, such as Euraxess

Links or national research organisations.

In the first place, all available evidence on the number of EU researchers in these

countries have been gathered through a careful and time-consuming research activity,

including both publicly accessible data-bases, data which have been specifically

requested from otherwise not publicly accessible data-bases, and information from

contacts in the relevant countries. An extensive list of all data sources that have been

screened is provided in Table 63 (in annex 9). Unfortunately, in spite of the considerable

amount of time invested to gather all the evidence there is, the data available are

limited. Data on (doctoral) students tend to be more readily available for many countries,

however, in a lot of cases no information about the country of origin is provided such that

EU-born students could not be identified. For instance, the largest source of data on

doctorate holders in the US, the Survey of Doctorate Recipients of the National Science

Foundation (NSF), only provides data on citizens from Europe, but not on the specific

country of origin (nor does it indicate how many doctorate recipients are EU citizens).

Moreover, for a number of countries data on foreign labour force could not be used as

either information about the type of occupation or information on the coutry of origin is

missing. The US is the country for which more and better data are available. However,

even in the US, the stock of EU-born researchers and its development over time have to

be estimated. The only exception regarding data availability is Japan, for which data on

the stock of EU-born researchers from 2006 to 2013 are available and thus, need not to

be estimated.72

Other types of sources can also present partial insights on the number of EU researchers

outside Europe. This is the case, for instance, for diploma equivalence records, ORCID

ID73 or patent records. However, the uneven prevalence of these sources across countries

and fields of science entails that the evidence they can provide is too partial to be

robustly applied for the estimation of the number of EU researchers.

Methodology

To estimate the stock of EU-born researchers in different countries, the approach of

MORE2 has been followed, but the procedure was refined and at least one rather strong

assumption could be eliminated. The step-wise approach is based on:

1. Data of EU-born research doctorate recipients in the US with definite

commitments for research positions in the US after graduation, provided by the

Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED). SED is a census of all researcher doctorate

recipients from US institutions,74 which provides yearly information on the foreign

doctorate recipients’ countries of birth since 1957. To calculate a proxy for the

yearly stock of EU-born researchers in the US, the number of doctorate recipients

who stated that they have “definite commitments for a research position in the US

after graduation” from 1962 to 2011 were used.

72 Source of the Japan data: http://www.moj.go.jp/housei/toukei/toukei_ichiran_touroku.html 73 ORCID provides an identifier for individuals to use with their name as they engage in research, scholarship,

and innovation activities http://orcid.org/ 74 https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvydoctorates/#tabs-2&micro


October 2017 102

In order to calculate the stocks of EU-born researchers in the US based on these

flow data we need to make an assumption regarding the length of researcher

careers. How long will a doctorate recipient with commitment for a research

position stay in research? When will she/he retire? Analogous to MORE2 we

assumed a lower, baseline and upper bound of the length of a postdoctoral

career: the lower bound was defined to be 25 years, the baseline assumption is

30 years and the upper bound of the length of researcher careers is 35 years.

Using this assumption allows for calculating a rather good proxy for the stock of

EU-born researchers between 1986/1991/1996 (depending on the length of

research careers) and 2011.

It should be noted that we explicitly and implicitly made two major assumptions:

First, the length of research careers is assumed to be 25, 30 or 35 years. Second,

in using this as a proxy for the stock of EU-born researchers in the US we

implicitly assumed that the number of outflows (EU citizens moving away from

US) and inflows of EU-born researchers are equal. This assumption is needed as

we do not have any data covering migration flows of postdoctoral EU researchers

in and out of the US.

2. In a second step we gathered data on the stock of EU-born HRST (human

resources in science and technology) working abroad for as many countries as

possible. Overall, OECD data on the stock of EU-born HRST working in the US,

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Chile were available for 2010/11.75

3. Next, the information gathered in 1) and 2) are combined. Since we do not have

any equivalent information on EU-born researchers in other countries but the US,

we calculate the proportion of EU-born researchers in the US to the EU-born stock

of HRST in the US and assume that this ratio is the same in all other countries

where data on EU-born HRST were available. As a result, stocks of EU-born

researchers in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Chile for the year

2011 can be derived. However, the rather strong assumption that the share of

EU-born researchers in the stock of EU-born HRST in the US is the same as in all

the other four countries in 2011 cannot be bypassed.

4. Finally, based on these five stocks of EU-born researchers we use data on EU-born

doctoral students to update the yearly stocks of EU-born researchers to the latest

available year. The procedure is based on the assumption that every year one-

fifth of EU-born doctoral students finishes their studies. A typical PhD programme

takes 5 years, with differences between fields and universities.76

Among this group of doctoral recipients some leave their host countries and the

rest either stays in research or starts working in another position. Therefore, we

need two additional assumptions regarding the stay rates in the host country and

the stay rates in research. For both stay rates lower and upper bounds are

assumed based on the literature. Table 64 in the Annex provides a short overview

of different sources (literature, surveys, etc.) concentrating on stay rates of

foreign labour forces in host countries as well as on stay rates of graduates in

research. In addition, the stay rate in the US is assumed to be higher than in

other countries as the US provides a more attractive (research) evironment than

any other country. The following stay rates are assumed:

Stay rates in host country (lower and upper bound respectively): 50% -

75% (US) and 40% - 65% (CAN, AUS, NZL, CHL)

Stay rates in research (lower and upper bound respectively): 40% - 60%

75 http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/dioc.htm 76 http://www.gradschoolhub.com/faqs/what-is-the-average-time-to-obtain-a-ph-d/


October 2017 103

Following this procedure allows one to estimate the stocks of EU-born researchers for five

countries: the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Chile. In addition, we have the

data on the stock of EU-born researchers working in Japan. Thus, in total stocks of EU-

born researchers in six countries (five estimated and one observed) can be presented.

However, the estimation of the number of EU researchers outside Europe presents

several limitations. Official statistics, gathered in country sources or in supranational

sources (e.g. OECD), do not usually apply the same definition of researcher as the one

used in the MORE3 study. The different classifications make it difficult to compare data

from various data sources. For instance, the used stocks of EU-born HRST are based on

different classifications of occupations. Data of EU-born work force of three countries

(Canada, Australia and Chile) are based on the ISCO classification. Here we follow the

OECD and use the subgroups ‘Professionals’ and ‘Technicians’ to define the stock of EU-

born HRST. However, other countries, like New Zealand or the US, provide data on

foreign labour force based on a national classification of occupation. The lack of

harmonisation between sources also makes cross-country comparison difficult.

As listed above, a number of assumptions are necessary to estimate the stock of EU-born

researchers. And even when using these assumptions data coverage is too limited to

include more than five countries. After all, those five countries are rather heterogeneous

and one crucial assumption is the equality of the shares of EU-born researchers in the

stock of EU-born HRST in all countries included.

In comparison with MORE2, however, the procedure applied allows for more

heterogeneity between the included countries. First, because we abstain from assuming

equal growth rates of the stocks of EU-born researchers in all countries included over a

period of 11 years and second, by using instead doctoral student enrolment data - which

are different for every country - we allow for much more variation between countries.

However, it should also be noted that we rely on researcher stocks as a result of doctoral

students, both for the calculation of the proxy for the stock of EU-born researchers in the

US and for updating the estimated yearly stocks of EU-born researchers by EU-born

doctoral students. We cannot capture researchers who move after their PhD, hence, we

need to assume that inflows and outflows of EU-born (postdoctoral) researchers are

equal.

Results

Regarding the total number of researchers, in accordance with previous studies (the

GlobalSCI survey or the Careers of Doctoral Holders study), we expect the largest group

of EU28 researchers to work in the US. It is one of the countries with a higher number of

researchers in HEI, and the MORE3 HE and Global survey also indicate that the US is a

preferred non-EU destination for EU researchers (see section 7.1.1.2).

Table 30 reflects a first overview of the number of EU28 doctoral candidates in the last

column. This overview is based on OECD data. The table shows the total number of

graduates in ISCED levels 5 to 8, the share of doctoral students from EU28 countries

enrolled in these same ISCED levels, and the resulting number of EU28 doctoral

students. The estimation of EU28 doctoral students is based on two main assumptions:

First, we assume that the share of foreign students among enrolled students equals

the share of foreign students among graduates.

Second, and most important, we assume that EU28 students are distributed

uniformly across ISCED levels.

This estimation and the underlying data does not include European doctoral students

doing short-term or long-term stays in these countries since they are not considered -

neither being graduated nor enrolled in these countries.

In addition, it is important to indicate that for the R2, R3 and R4 researchers there is no

such detailed large-scale information available.


October 2017 104

Table 30: Number of EU28 doctoral students in each country in 2014

Country

Total number of graduates

(ISCED2011 levels 5 to 8)

Share of EU28 students

enrolled in tertiary

education

(ISCED2011 levels 5 to 8)

Total number EU students ISCED 2011 levels 5 -8

Estimation of EU doctoral or equivalent level (ISCED2011

level 8)

Australia 422.842 3% 11417 227

Israel 75.058 18% 13585 280

Japan 980.726 2% 23537 385

Korea 611.512 1% 3669 78

New Zealand 70.055 4% 3012 61

Turkey 733.237 6% 46927 289

United States 3.813.956 7% 251721 4452

Source: OECD.Stat

We now turn to the proper estimation of the stock of EU researchers working abroad. We

follow the four steps of the methodology outlined in the methodology section, gathering

the data on EU doctoral researchers in the US and on HRST in selected countries. From

this we get a ratio, which we use to calculate stocks of researchers in non-US countries in

the base year. Using growth rates of doctoral researchers, we update the researcher

stocks to more recent years. Using literature-based corridors for the country and

research stay rates, we arrive at a range of estimates for the years 2010-2014 (Table

31Error! Reference source not found.). Consistent with our expectations, and with

the attractiveness as well as the size of the US, the highest number of EU researchers

can be found in the US. Canada and Australia also receive relatively large numbers of EU

researchers, consistent with motives to move for EU researchers, and the attractiveness

of the Canadian and Australian higher education system. By comparison with the number

of EU researchers working abroad as shown in MORE2, the numbers for the US in MORE3

show a plausible increase. The numbers for 2011 for Australia and Canada are higher in

MORE2 than in MORE3. This is related to the change of methodology, in that we now don

not assume equal growth rates of the stocks of EU-born researchers in all countries

included. Second, by using instead doctoral student enrolment data - which are different

for every country - we allow for much more variation between countries. Overall, the

number of EU researchers abroad seems limited when compared with the total number of

EU HEI researchers according to Eurostat (headcount: 1.78 million in 2014, full-time

equivalent 0.9 million). However, due to excellence-based recruitment criteria of top

institutions in the US, but also in other OECD economies such as Canada and Australia,

the small number of researchers may be disproportionately scientifically productive. It is

well-known that scientific output at an individual level is extremely highly skewed, with

few individuals in each fields contributing a large share of the most highly-cited

publications.77

77 Also known as Lotka’s law, see Stephan, Paula E. "The economics of science." Handbook of the economics of

innovation 1 (2010): 217-273.

http://stats.oecd.org/OECDStat_Metadata/ShowMetadata.ashx?Dataset=EDU_GRAD_FIELD&Coords=%5bCOUNTRY%5d.%5bISR%5d&ShowOnWeb=true&Lang=en

http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DatasetCode=EDU_GRAD_FIELD


October 2017 105

Table 31: Estimated stock of EU28 born researchers in selected countries in three

different simulation scenarios in the period 2010-2014

2010 2014

Lower

bound Baseline

Upper

bound

Lower

bound Baseline

Upper

bound

United States 13,515 14,700 15,896 16,458 19,483 22,518

Canada 4,288 4,664 5,044 4,463 4,964 5,469

Japan 1,603 1,717

Australia 3,995 4,345 4,699 4,213 4,720 5,230

New Zealand 760 827 894 839 962 1,085

Chile 53 57 62 54 59 65

Source: Own calculations based on National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, NSF/NIH/EDUSDA/NEH/NASA Survey of Earned Doctorates – special

tabluation (July 2013); OECD and Ministry of Justice in Japan Note:

- Canada: 2013 instead of 2014

7.1.2. Short-term international mobility

Next to the moves of more than three months, the MORE3 Global survey, similar to the

MORE3 EU HE survey, also covered shorter-term moves (i.e. of less than three months).

In this section the main findings in terms of short-term mobility are presented; a

distinction is made between short-term mobility less than ten years ago and more than

ten years ago.

40% of the researchers who currently work outside the EU have worked abroad for less

than 3 months at least once in the last ten years (see Figure 52). This share is similar to

the one found among researchers working in the EU: the MORE3 EU HEI survey 37% of

the researchers working in the EU have moved for less than three months in the last ten

years.

Interestingly, researchers working outside the EU (this survey) and in the EU (MORE3 EU

HE survey) display a similar level of short-term mobility done in the past: 12% indicated

that they were mobile for less than 3 months but that this was more than 10 years ago.

In total, about 51% indicate that they have experienced short-term mobility (towards a

country different than were they obtained their PhD or highest degree) at some point,

while the other 49% of the sample has never engaged in this type of mobility (Figure

52). These findings are in line with the MORE3 EU HE survey.


October 2017 106

Figure 52: Short-term mobility (stock)


Notes: - Based on question 79 “How would you typify your experience with short term mobility (of less

than 3 months at a time)?”

- (n= 1,727)

Gender: Women tend to be less short-term mobile (in the last ten years) than men

(37% versus 41% respectively). This difference is also consistent with the results of the

MORE3 EU HEI Survey.

Career stage: With respect to career stages, it can be observed that short-term mobility

(in the last ten years) is more frequent in higher career stages: 29% among R1; 35%

among R2; 40% among R3 and 49% among R4.

Target groups: There are however, important differences across target groups (see

Figure 53). The share of non-mobile researchers reaches 58% among non-EU

researchers that have not worked for more than 3 months in another country (TG4).

Conversely, the lowest share is observed among non-EU researchers that have worked in

an EU country (TG2).

Interestingly, EU researchers working abroad are less likely to move for short-term

periods compared to mobile non-EU researchers: 46% of EU researchers (TG1) have

done so compared to 60% of non-EU researchers having worked in EU countries (TG2)

and to 51% of non-EU researchers that have worked in third countries but never in the

EU (TG3).

39.6

11.5

48.9

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Short-term mobile in the last ten years

Short-term mobile but more than ten years ago

Never have been short-term mobile


October 2017 107

Figure 53: Short-term mobility per target group

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n= 417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869)

- Based on question 79 “How would you typify your experience with short-term mobility (of less

than 3 months at a time)?” - (n= 1,727)

Country of current employment: When looking at the share of researchers that have

been short-term mobile in the last ten years per country where they are currently

employed, interesting differences emerge. Figure 54 shows only those countries for

which there are more than 30 respondents in the sample. Although these shares should

be interpreted with caution due to the methodological limitations of the survey (see

section 4 of this report), this figure shows that Anglo-Saxon countries tend to have lower

shares of short-term mobile researchers than other countries, most notably the larger

South American and Asian countries, such as Chile, Argentina, Brazil, or Mexico; and

China, or Japan).

45.8

9.4

44.860.1

7.2

32.7

51.1

9.6

39.328.1

14.3

57.7

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2

TG3 TG4

Short-term mobile in the last ten years

Short-term mobile but more than ten years ago

Never have been short-term mobile


October 2017 108

Figure 54: Short-term mobility in the last ten years across countries

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - The country of reference is the country where researchers are currently employed. - All target groups are included.

- Only countries for which there are more than 30 respondents are displayed in the figure. - Based on question 79 “How would you typify your experience with short-term mobility (of less

than 3 months at a time)?”

- (n=1,727)

7.1.3. Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits

In the MORE3 Global survey (similar to findings in the MORE3 EU HE survey), researchers

were asked about the type of “short-term” work-related international travel they have

undertaken during their research career; conferences/visits, study visits/research visits

and fieldwork and/or meetings with supervisors/partners/collaborators. An overview of

each of these episodes of international travel is provided below. More detailed

information and figures is included in Annex 8.

The most frequent type of short-term move among researchers working outside Europe

refers to attending conferences (72%), followed by the moves to meet with supervisors,

colleagues or partners (45%) and those related to study visits (41%)78.

78 These shares reflect those researchers doing these types of moves often or sometimes.

17.3

29.932.136.437.838.739.339.740.641.743.645.4

51.952.655.260.0

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Turke

y

Sou

th A

frica

Rus

sia

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Can

ada

Indi

a

Mex

ico

Aus

tralia

Japa

n

New

Zea

land

Isra

el

Bra

zil

Col

ombi

a

Arg

entin

a

Chi

le

Chi

na


October 2017 109

Target groups: When looking at the differences across target groups, the survey results

indicate the following results:

No large differences are found across the target groups reflecting mobile

researchers (TG1, TG2, and TG3) with respect to the patterns of types of short-

term moves.

When looking at the frequency of the moves, EU researchers working abroad (TG1)

stand out due to their higher shares of frequent moves to attend conferences, and

to meet with supervisors, partners, and/or collaborators. This indicates that EU

researchers are in a comparatively good position with respect to their international

exposure and links.

15% of EU researchers working outside Europe (TG1) state that they have never

gone to another country to have meetings with supervisors, partners, and/or

collaborators. This share is similar to that of non-European mobile researchers who

also have never done so (TG2 and TG3).

Non-European researchers that have never been mobile (TG4) are less likely to

undertake this type of short-term international travel than the rest of the

researchers.

7.1.4. Networking and remaining connected with Europe

Results of the GlobSci survey (Scellato et al. 2012)79 indicate that mobile scientists are

more likely to establish international links and have links with a larger number of

countries than natives with no prior experience of mobility. In order to obtain insights

into networking activities and international links, the MORE3 Global survey included

questions on the types of connections that researchers with an EU mobility experience

maintained with Europe and European researchers - i.e. among EU researchers working

abroad (TG1) and among non-EU researchers that had previously worked in Europe

(TG2).

Overall, the results indicate that the most frequent connections maintained with Europe

are: having a wide informal network of friends/acquaintances/colleagues and

participation in conferences.

Target groups: Figure 55 shows the share of researchers within each target group that

aim to maintain each type of connection with Europe. The pattern of connections is very

similar for both target groups. The most notable differences relate to the collaboration

with scientific journals in Europe where the share is 18 percentage points higher among

this group of non-EU researchers compared to their EU counterparts. This finding might

be related to the fact that their stay in Europe encourages them to publish their work in

scientific publications offered by European publishers - e.g. Taylor & Francis, Elsevier or

other international publishers based in the EU, national-level publications specific to each

field of science, or publications related to research associations at European level, to

name but a few. It may also be linked to differences in scientific productivity.

Relevant, although smaller differences can also be found in the responses to the item

asking about participation in conferences (6 percentage points higher among EU

researchers). EU researchers are also more likely to be involved in national professional

associations (7 percentage points higher than in TG2).

79 G. Scellato, C. Franzoni, and P. Stephan. Scientists and International Networks, NBER Working paper No.

18613, December 2012.



October 2017 110

Figure 55: Network with Europe


- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - (*) Note: the item on “official” diaspora networks was only asked to EU researchers currently

working abroad.

- Based on questions 52 “Please indicate below the type of connections you still maintain with Europe”, and question 65 “Please indicate below the type of connections you still maintain with

European research/researchers”

7.2. Intersectoral mobility

This section discusses the levels of intersectoral mobility found among researchers

working outside Europe. Mobility between different research sectors, such as between the

academic and industrial sector – or others, such as not-for-profit – is crucial for the

exchange of ideas, for exploiting knowledge and more generally for innovative capability.

Intersectoral mobility is even more important when the business sector becomes more

R&D intensive and demands more researchers, which tend to work primarily in higher

education and government.

The problem according to the ESF80 is that the difficulties of producing highly-ranked

scientific publications in applied industrial research often hinders the return to the

academic sector, as academic employers or peer reviewers for grant applications usually

look out for high quality publications as a decision criterion. The difficulties in returning to

the academic sector after working in industry are said to be an important barrier for

researchers wanting to engage in this type of mobility. Other intersectoral mobility

80 See footnote 10.

81.4

77.7

60.5

66.2

42.2

40.8

51.7

33.6

33.3

22.1

29.5

12.2

15.6

3.8

5.0

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Has a wide informal network of friends/acquaintainces/colleagues

Participates in conferences

Is active in some linkage mechanisms

Collaborates with scientific journals

Keeps in touch with 'official' diaspora networks (*)

Is involved in national professional associations

Maintains business relationships with the country of origin/Europe

Is no longer connected to European research/researchers




October 2017 111

barriers include different research cultures and salary levels as well as the limited

awareness of researchers regarding career opportunities outside academia. The literature

finds that work experience inside and outside academia is connected to scientific

recognition in the United States, but is less influential in Europe81. In the same vein,

earlier research82 has shown that Europe displays a lower share of researchers working in

industry than other countries, such as Japan or the US. This section of the report shows

the main figures and trends related to this type of mobility among researchers currently

working outside the EU.

7.2.1. Stock

The survey questioned researchers about the sectors in which they currently work (as

researchers) and on whether they have worked in a different sector in the last ten years.

22% of the sample of researchers currently working outside the EU indicate that they

have been intersectorally mobile (regardless of the sector they work in). There are no

large differences across the four main groups on this dimension (see Figure 127 in annex

8).

Target groups: Figure 56 displays the levels of intersectoral mobility among researchers

currently working in Higher Education Institutions across target groups. Overall, roughly

one out of five researchers working outside the EU has some type of intersectoral

mobility experience, but EU researchers display lower shares of intersectoral mobility

than the rest of the target groups. This may be linked to the EU researchers abroad being

at an earlier stage of their career where success is judged by an academic publication

record rather than intersectoral mobility. Note that the perception of intersectoral

mobility as a positive factor for recruitment and career progression is roughly similar

across target groups.

81 Youtie, J., Rogers, J., Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Tang, L., "Career-based influences on scientific recognition in

the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data", Research Policy, 2013, 42(8), pp. 1341–1355.

82 Vandevelde, K. (2014). Intersectoral Mobility. Report from the 2014 ERAC mutual learning workshop on Human Resources and Mobility.


October 2017 112

Figure 56: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years: researchers currently working

in Higher Education Institutions

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one

institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research

positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), and Question 20 “Apart from your current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?”

- (n=1,512).

Gender: With respect to other dimensions of interest, the survey results indicate that

there are no significant differences on the extent to which women and men currently

working in HEI have an intersectoral mobility experience: 19% of the researchers in both

groups.

Country of current employment: The survey sheds light on the extent to which

intersectoral mobility is more or less frequent across countries. Figure 57 shows the

share of researchers that have been intersectoral mobile in the last ten years in a series

of countries. The shares range between 31% in South Africa to 11% in the US. Regarding

the latter, US-based researchers working in Engineering and Technology show higher-

than-average shares of intersectoral mobility (31% vs 21% in the overall sample).

However, in the other fields of science, US-based researchers show lower levels of

intersectoral mobility than those found in the total sample of researchers working outside

Europe. This is notably the case of researchers working in the Natural Sciences: US-

based researchers working in this discipline display much lower shares of intersectoral

mobility than the general population of researchers working outside Europe: 6% vs 16%

respectively. It is interesting to note that the differences across countries seem not to be

related to the type of HEI system, nor to the level of economic development. The number

of researchers in each country and its link to the difficulties to obtain tenure and/or the

availability of positions in the private sector can be some of the factors explaining these

22.2 20.6 20.524.2 23.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU






October 2017 113

differences. However, this analysis should be taken with caution since only those

countries with more than 30 respondents have been taken into account and our sample is

not representative.

Figure 57: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years: across countries


- The country of reference is the country of current employment. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one

institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), and Question 20 “Apart from your current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?”

- (n = 1,363) - Only considers countries where 30 or more researchers are currently employed.

10.9 11.313.2

16.718.2

19.9 20.4 21.2 21.4 22.023.6

26.6

30.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Unite

d Sta

tes

Bra

zil

Isra

el

Rus

sia

New

Zea

land

Can

ada

Japa

n

Turke

y

Chile

Aus

tralia

Mex

ico

Colom

bia

Sou

th A

frica


October 2017 114

7.2.2. Flows and moves

Type of sector: The survey also provides information on the levels of intersectoral

mobility across sectors. Figure 58 shows the share of researchers working in Higher

Education Institutions and in the public sector that have previously worked in a different

sector83. This figure shows that there are very large differences across the two sectors.

Whereas nearly half of the researchers working in the public sector have previously

worked in a different sector, only 19% of the researchers in the Higher Education

Institutions has a previous intersectoral mobility experience. This difference can be

explained by the fact that in the public sector, a large number of researchers has

previously worked at a higher education institution (62%). This is specially the case when

one looks into the first stages of researchers’ careers, where universities are more likely

to propose short-term contracts than government institutions, for instance, in the form of

contracts to develop a PhD thesis or for short-term postdoctoral positions.

Figure 58: Intersectoral mobility by type of sector

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research

positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), and Question 20 “Apart from your current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a

researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?” - (n=1,635: 1,512 researchers are currently employed in Higher Education Institutions, and 123

in the public or government sector). Results for other sectors (large companies, SMEs or not-

83 Intersectoral mobility in other sectors – not-for-profit organisations, large companies, and SMEs and start-

ups – is not reported due to the low number of respondents in these categories (n<30).

19.3

48.0

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Higher Education Institution Public or government sector


October 2017 115

for-profit organisations) are not reported because the number of observations is smaller or

equal to 30 respondents.

7.2.3. Effects

The survey included questions on the perception of intersectoral mobility as a positive

factor for recruitment among those researchers currently employed in Higher Education

Institutions. A detailed analysis is undertaken in section 5.3.2. It is interesting to note

that having an intersectoral mobility experience (or not) is unrelated to the perception of

it being a positive or negative factor for recruitment (see Figure 59).

Similar findings are observed when analysing perceptions about the consequences of

intersectoral mobility on career progression (see also section 5.4.2): there are no

significant differences between researchers that have been mobile and those that have

not (see Figure 60). Future research should investigate whether these perceptions

change across sectors: the limited number of responses from researchers having had a

previous mobility experience in the private sector prevents us from shedding light on this

question.

Figure 59: Perception of the effect of intersectoral mobility on recruitment in home

institution


- The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), Question 20 “Apart from your current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?”, and Question 33 “In your experience, would you say

9.411.3

41.5 41.438.9 38.7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Negative Not relevant Positive

No intersectoral mobility in the past 10 years

Intersectoral mobility in the past 10 years


October 2017 116

that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for recruitment in your

home institution?” - (n=1,512).

Figure 60: Perception of the effect of intersectoral mobility on career progression in home institution


Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), Question 20 “Apart from your

current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?”, and Question 34 “In your experience, would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for career progression in your home institution?”

- (n=1,512).

13.1 14.4

42.139.7

36.238.7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


No intersectoral mobility in the past 10 years

Intersectoral mobility in the past 10 years


October 2017 117

7.3. Interdisciplinary mobility

This section discusses the levels of interdisciplinary mobility of researchers working

outside Europe. Interdisciplinary is often seen as a key driver of research

breakthroughs.84 The growing importance of knowledge economies today is related to an

increase in interactions between disciplines. Although there are various definitions of

interdisciplinarity,85 interdisciplinary mobility - understood as mobility across research

fields - can contribute to the interaction across disciplines, and it can lead to the

emergence of new research questions and new approaches to problems. In addition,

interdisciplinary mobility has been related to the strengthening of certain skills that are

becoming increasingly important. Examples of these skills are those related to the

capacity to effectively communicate beyond the frontiers of one´s own field, to having an

entrepreneurial mindset86 and a greater capacity to adapt to changing environments.

However, there are often barriers that can hinder this type of mobility. One of them

refers to the fact that disciplinary affiliation might have a positive impact on scientific

recognition87: If a researcher does not publish and collaborate in a defined discipline, they

are likely to be penalised in terms of scientific impact88. This does not happen everywhere

to the same extent, since it is related to both education and university organisation. In

the US, for instance, students and researchers enjoy more freedom to engage with

different disciplines, while in Europe, academic networks are structured around

disciplines and tend to reflect hierarchical work relationships.

This type of mobility is, together with international and intersectoral mobility, one of the

cornerstones of European science policy and programmes (e.g. the Marie Skłodowska-

Curie actions89 or the European Research Council granting schemes90), although it tends

to receive less attention than the other two main types of mobility (intersectoral and

international mobility). In spite of this, as it is shown below, researchers consider this

type of move as being a more positive factor for recruitment or career progression than

intersectoral mobility.

7.3.1. Stock

Approximately a third of the respondents declare to have switched to another (sub)field

of research during their career.

Target groups: There might be differences across countries regarding the classifications

of disciplines and subdisciplines. However, when looking into overall figures per target

group, it can be observed that the four target groups present similar levels of

84 See, e.g., Schilling, M. A., Green, E., "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of

high impact papers in the social sciences", Research Policy, 2011, 40(10), pp. 1321–1331. 85 Qin, J, Lancaster, F. W., Allen, B. "Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the

sciences." JASIS 48.10, 1997,pp. 893-916. 86 The State of the Innovation Union 2011 report: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-

the-union/2013/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2013.pdf 87 Youtie, J., Rogers, J., Heinze, T., Shapira, P., Tang, L., "Career-based influences on scientific recognition in

the United States and Europe: Longitudinal evidence from curriculum vitae data", Research Policy, 2013, 42(8), pp. 1341–1355.

Van Rijnsoever, Frank J., and Laurens K. Hessels. "Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration." Research policy 40.3 (2011): 463-472.

88 Rhoten, D., Parker, A. "Risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary research path." Science 306.5704 (2004): 2046-2046.

89 COMMISSION (DG RTD). 2012. Marie Curie Actions- Where Innovation Science becomes success. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/research/mariecurieactions/documents/documentation/publications/eu-marie-curie-actions-fellowships-innovative-science-becomes-success-publication_en.pdf

90 ERC (2009). Towards a world class Frontier Research. Organisation Review of the European Research Council’s Structures and Mechanisms. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/content/pages/pdf/final_report_230709.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2013.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2013.pdf


October 2017 118

interdisciplinary mobility, the largest difference being the one between EU researchers

(TG1) and non-EU researchers having worked previously in the EU (TG2) (8 percentage

points).

Gender: The results of the MORE3 Global survey reveal the existence of small gender

differences in this dimension: 32% of men and 35% of women have been

interdisciplinarily mobile. In the MORE3 EU HEI survey, the level of interdisciplinary

mobility was similar (34%) but without differences across gender groups.

Figure 61: Interdisciplinary mobility


Notes: - Based on question 9 “Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your career?” - (n=1,727)

7.3.2. Flows and moves

In spite of the homogeneity displayed across target groups with respect to their levels of

intersectoral mobility, more significant differences emerge when looking at the question

from the perspective of disciplines and countries. With respect to the former, Figure 62

shows the differences between EU and non-EU researchers across disciplines.

Researchers employed in Engineering and Technology tend to be more interdisciplinarily

mobile (36%) than researchers working in other disciplines, followed by researchers in

the Social Sciences (34%). One of the reasons for the higher level of interdisciplinarity

among researchers working in Engineering and Technology might be related to the

increasing embeddedness of IT disciplines within these (sub)disciplines. This finding is

consistent with the results of the MORE3 EU HEI survey.

33.429.5

38.0

33.7 33.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%







October 2017 119

EU versus non-EU researchers: Figure 62 shows that EU researchers are more likely

to be more interdisciplinarily mobile than non-EU researchers in Engineering and

Technology (7 percentage points) and in the Humanities (7 percentage points).

Conversely, non-EU researchers display larger shares of interdisciplinary mobility than EU

researchers in the Medical Sciences (9 percentage points), Natural Sciences (8

percentage points), and the Social Sciences (7 percentage points).

Figure 62: Interdisciplinary mobility across disciplines and origins

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - (*) The figure for interdisciplinary mobility of EU researchers working in Agricultural Sciences

is not reported because the n value is lower than 30. - Based on question 8 “What is your main field of research in your current position?” and

question 9 “Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your career?” - (n=1,727)

7.3.3. Effects

When asked whether interdisciplinary mobility is perceived as a positive or a negative

factor for recruitment, it is interesting to note that there are no large differences between

those that have an interdisciplinary mobility experience and those that have not. In

general, interdisciplinary mobility is seen as a positive factor for recruitment in the

researchers´ home institution (56%) (Figure 127 in annex 8). In comparison with the

results of the MORE3 EU HEI survey (74%), this factor seems to be more positively

perceived among researchers working in Europe.

Target group: Figure 63 shows that 56% of those that have been interdisciplinary

mobile and 59% of those that have not share this opinion. However, researchers that

have been mobile in the past tend to have a slightly less sanguine opinion on the effects

30.625.2

33.5 36.340.3

35.131.0

23.9

33.7

31.8 33.3 34.4

25.0

36.6 34.9

50.0

31.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Natural Sciences Engineering and Technology Medical Sciences

Agricultural Sciences Social Sciences Humanities

Total

EU Researchers currently working outside the EU

Non-EU researchers


October 2017 120

of this type of move on recruitment: 13% consider that moves across disciplines are

perceived as negative versus 8% of those that have not been mobile.

A similar picture arises when considering researchers´ perceptions with respect to the

impact of interdisciplinary mobility on career progression (see Figure 64). Researchers

that do not have an interdisciplinary mobility experience tend to have a slightly more

positive view on the impact it can have on career progression: 57% of those without this

type of mobility experience versus 54% of the researchers that have worked in other

disciplines.

Further research should investigate the extent to which this positive perception is held by

researchers across different career stages and which are the disciplines where

interdisciplinary mobility is being perceived as a more negative or positive factor for

career progression and recruitment. The limitations of this survey prevents one from

extracting meaningful conclusions to these questions, but the findings suggest that these

are avenues worth investigating.

Figure 63: Perception of the effect of interdisciplinary mobility on recruitment in

home institution

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on question 8 “What is your main field of research in your current position?”, question 9

“Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your career?” and Question 33 “In your experience, would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for recruitment in your home institution?”

- (n=1,512).

8.3

13.3

26.224.0

58.656.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


No interdisciplinary mobility in the past 10 years

Interdisciplinary mobility in the past 10 years


October 2017 121

Figure 64: Perception of the effect of interdisciplinary mobility on career progression

in home institution

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions.

- Based on question 8 “What is your main field of research in your current position?”, question 9 “Did you switch to another (sub)field of research during your career?” and Question 34 “In your experience, would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for career progression in your home institution?”

- (n=1,512)

7.4. Collaboration

The survey included questions on the types of collaborations in which researchers

engage. The extent to which researchers collaborate with others working in different

disciplines, sectors or countries, enhances the countries´ human capital and can have a

positive effect on the quality of the research produced and the levels of innovation.

Previous research91 has highlighted some of the most oft-cited reasons to collaborate:

having access to expertise and new research techniques92; access to research equipment;

better opportunities to access grants; increase productivity or even for fun93. In spite of

91 Beaver, D., 2001. Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present and future.

Scientometrics 52, 365–377. Bozeman, B., Corley, E. "Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human

capital." Research policy 33.4 (2004): 599-616. 92 Katz, J.S., Martin, B.R., 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26, 1–18. 93 Thorsteinsdottir, O., 2000. External research collaboration in two small science systems. Scientometrics 49,

145–160.

9.311.7

27.4 27.5

56.754.3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


No interdisciplinary mobility in the past 10 years

Interdisciplinary mobility in the past 10 years


October 2017 122

these incentives to collaborate, there are important differences across the types of

collaboration that researchers are more inclined to engage with. It is important to note

that this survey has focused on only one dimension of collaboration; that is, that carried

out by researchers who have been internationally mobile in the past ten years.

Figure 65 shows the most frequent types of collaborations among EU researchers

working abroad (TG1) and among non-EU researchers having a previous working

experience in Europe (TG2). This figure shows how the patterns of international and

intersectoral collaboration are very similar across both groups: 70% of researchers

collaborate with organisations located in another country, and nearly one out of three

does so with organisations from another sector. The difference between the two target

groups appears to be slightly larger when refering to collaborations with another field or

discipline: 63% of the non-EU researchers having worked in the EU before have done this

type of collaboration versus 59% of the EU researchers.

Gender: Significant gender differences emerge when comparing the two target groups.

Although in general, women tend to undertake these types of collaboration less

frequently than men, the differences are larger among non-EU researchers that have

worked in Europe (TG2) than among EU researchers working outside Europe (TG1). In

the former, gender differences reach 14 percentage points in the levels of international

collaboration and 7 percentage points for intersectoral collaboration. Among European

researchers (TG1) the differences are more reduced: 5 percentage points to 2

percentage points for international and intersectoral collaboration respectively (see Table

60 in annex 8).

Country of current employment: When analysing the patterns of collaboration across

countries (see Figure 128 in annex), BRICS countries tend to display lower levels of

interdisciplinary, international and intersectoral collaboration than other countries.

Interdisciplinary collaboration in BRICS (8%) is much less common than in Anglo-Saxon

countries or non-EU OECD countries (17% respectively). There is a similar difference

with respect to international collaboration, where 11% of the researchers working in

BRICS claim to do this type of collaboration compared to 23% among Anglo-Saxon

countries or a similar share in non-EU OECD countries.

Country of current employment: Intersectoral collaboration is the least frequent in

most of the countries. BRICS show the lowest shares of this type of collaboration on

average (3%). Researchers having engaged in intersectoral collaboration constitute

around 10% of the researchers in Anglo-Saxon countries, in the US and in non-EU OECD

countries.


October 2017 123

Figure 65: Types of collaboration


Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263)

- Based on question 57 and question 68 “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your research. Which of these collaborations was the result of a previous mobility experience?”

- (n=680: 417 in TG1, 263 in TG2)

Collaboration as result of previous mobility experience: The findings (Figure 66)

show that there are larger differences in this area than those related to the intensity of

collaboration between EU researchers and non-EU researchers having had previous

working experience in Europe. International, intersectoral, and interdisciplinary

collaboration are related to a previous mobility experience to a larger extent among non-

EU researchers having worked in Europe (TG2) than among EU researchers (TG1)94. The

differences between the two target groups across the three types of collaboration are

very similar: they range from 13 percentage points for international collaboration to 11

percentage points for interdisciplinary collaboration.

94 This might be related to TG2 researchers that have been mobile at least twice, while TG1 researchers have

been mobile at least once.

78.9

59.2

30.5

74.5

62.7

29.3

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2

Researchers at organisations in another country

Researchers in another field or discipline

Researchers in another sector


October 2017 124

Figure 66: Collaborations as a result of a mobility experience

Source: MORE3 Global -survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417)


- (The number of responses for each item depends on the number of respondents having indicated that they have done each type of collaboration)

- Based on question 57 and question 68 “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your research. Which of these collaborations was the result of a previous mobility experience?”

74.871.7

66.9

87.882.4

79.2

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2

Researchers at organisations in another country

Researchers in another field or discipline

Researchers in another sector


October 2017 125

8. Attractiveness of ERA

When knowledge is the principal factor behind competitive advantage and when there is

increasing competition for the best talents, the attractiveness of research areas is crucial

for sustainable and dynamic knowledge economies. The analysis performed in the MORE2

study provides a clear picture of what drives attractiveness among researchers in

academia (Janger - Nowotny, 2016; Janger - Strauss - Campbell, 201395). Attractiveness

is influenced by research job characteristics related to remuneration, pensions and job

security (“financial” working conditions) and other non-science related conditions, but

driven by those influencing a researcher’s scientific productivity, such as research

autonomy, career paths and working with high quality peers.

“Financial and social” working conditions:

Salary, pension and health characteristics;

Job security;

Quality of life;

Satisfaction with job content and challenge.

Working conditions relevant for scientific productivity:

Research organisation at working unit level (research and financial

autonomy);

Balance between teaching, administrative tasks, and research;

Availability of funding (including research infrastructure);

Quality of peers.

Career perspectives are cross-cutting working conditions, as they influence both financial

conditions and scientific knowledge production. Career perspectives are particularly

important to early stage researchers, for whom a performance-based model (“tenure-

track” versus a seniority-based model) can make a substantial difference to their careers.

To this end, cooperating with industry or commercialising own research results can be

added as influencing attractiveness.

Attractiveness is hence a result of the structure of career paths and the quality of

working conditions (analysed in sections 5 and 6). International, intersectoral or

interdisciplinary mobility may be driven by perceptions of varying attractiveness. In turn,

mobility indicators (see section 7), e.g. in terms of which countries researchers choose

for their international mobility experience, can also be interpreted as indicators of

attractiveness. Based on the MORE 3 Global survey analysed in this report, we can thus

provide evidence on how researchers perceive attractiveness in a global setting. The

corresponding research questions are listed in the box below.

Box 6: Main research question on ERA attractiveness

How are the research environment and working conditions in other countries

perceived in comparison with those in the EU?

How are the research systems in the EU and outside the EU compared?

Why do EU researchers decide to work outside EU?

Why do non-EU researchers decide to come (or not to come) to the EU?

What factors influence their decision to remain or return to EU?

What factors influence their decision to stay or leave?

95 Janger, J., Strauss, A., Campbell, D., (2013) Academic careers: a cross-country perspective,

WWWforEurope; Janger, J., Nowotny, K., “Job choice in academia“. Research Policy 45, Nr. 8 (Oktober 2016): 1672–83. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.001.


October 2017 126

What are factors hindering researchers to return to the EU?

What problems do they experience in coming to the EU and in working as

researchers in Europe?

How do the research environment and working conditions in Europe compare with

those in other countries?

Are they considering moving (back) to the EU (again)?

Are they interested in working in Europe?

Are different types of EU research funding known outside the EU? Are researchers

working outside the EU interested in EU research funding types? Have they

obtained them?

We use the following information from the survey to provide evidence for these research

questions:

Perception of attractiveness of current research position (section 8.1);

Direct comparison of research systems (section 8.2);

Comparison of barriers,motives and effects for mobility (section 8.3).

Interest to work in the EU (section 8.4)

Analysis of the EU-level policy instruments Euraxess and EU research funding

(section 8.5).

Two dimensions are important in the analysis: the target groups and country of current

employment. For the latter, the responses of the survey are clustered into 5 country

groups by country of current employment of the researchers: 1) non-EU OECD (including

the US), 2) Anglo-Saxon countries (including the US), 3) the US separately, 4) the BRICS

countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), and 5) other non-EU and non-

OECD countries (cf. section 4.3.3 for more detail). A more precise comparison (i.e. by

countries) is not possible for most countries given the too low observation numbers. The

US was singled out because of its excellent research universities which manage to attract

talented researchers from all over the world.96

What becomes apparent with respect to almost all aspects of perceived attractiveness

throughout the whole section is that researchers working in the US and non-EU OECD

countries are the most satisfied irrespective of whether they have been mobile or not.

Rather, many differences between researchers are driven by their current country of

employment than by their mobility experiences or their country of origin. In most cases

the differentiation between target groups shows less variation than differentiation

between country groups. Moreover, the variation between target groups that is observed

is – at least to a certain extent - based on the distribution of researchers’ country of

employment. This particularly applies in case of the US. For instance, 22% of EU

researchers currently working abroad (TG1) are working in the US which has one of the

best research systems worldwide. Other large groups in TG1 are working in Australia

(23%) and Canada (12%). With these shares, TG1 is more represented in these

countries than other target groups. While TG1 makes up 24% of the total number of

respondents, 39% of the respondents who are currently employed in the US are TG1. In

the groups of researchers working in the non-EU OECD and Anglo-Saxon countries 29%

are TG1 researchers.

Thus, when interpreting differences between target groups’ perception of satisfaction in

their current research positions one needs to bear in mind that those results are biased

by the non-uniform distribution of EU researchers who participated in the survey across

different countries of employment.

96 Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683.


October 2017 127

8.1. Attractiveness based on perception of satisfaction in current research position

Section 6.2 focused on researchers’ perception of satisfaction with the remuneration

package in their current position. However, aside from remuneration, there are several

other factors directly influencing the attractiveness of research careers and the decision

between competing job offers for a position in research. Researchers decide between

jobs in research not only based on remuneration and other material well-being related

issues such as social security, but also on job characteristics which influence the scientific

productivity of researchers.

In order to disentangle the various factors, we group the different aspects of researchers’

satisfaction with their current job in terms of:

Non-science related working conditions that affect the attractiveness of researcher

careers or the decision between jobs:

Job and social security;

Social environment and recognition;

Individual satisfaction at work;

Working conditions that directly affect scientific knowledge production:

Research funding;

Intellectual support;

Time balance and research autonomy;

Career and mobility perspectives.

Note that by design, none of the researchers currently work in the EU, so that their view

on job satisfaction cannot be interpreted as a direct measure of the attractiveness of jobs

in the EU. However, the pattern of satisfaction with job characteristics can be compared

between non-EU countries. This section is therefore first useful to determine which

regions at a global scale offer more or less attractive jobs; the results can also be

compared with the MORE3 EU HE survey, but as the data are not representative, we will

pay more attention to whether the patterns and relationships of satisfaction are similar or

dissimilar.

In what follows, each aspect will be discussed in more detail according to this structure.

First, Figure 67 gives an overview of the averages for working conditions based on this

structure:

Non-science related working conditions that affect the attractiveness of

researcher careers or the decision between jobs:

Perceived working conditions affecting extrinsic pecuniary motivations is

shown by financial security (average of job security, pension plan and social

security);

Social working conditions are shown by social environment and

recognition (social status, reputation of employer, contribution to society);

Content-specific working conditions are shown by individual satisfaction at

work (average of intellectual challenge, dynamic work environment, level of

responsibility and quality of life).

Working conditions that directly affect scientific knowledge production, as the

average of:

Satisfaction with research funding and access to facilities (financial support

for research);

Satisfaction with working with leading scientists and the perceived quality of

education and training (intellectual support);


October 2017 128

Satisfaction with the balance between research and teaching as well as with

research autonomy;

Career as well as mobility perspectives affect both knowledge production and

financial security, so are shown as a separate bar in the figure.

While the share of researchers satisfied with their social environment (82%) and

perceiving satisfaction in their current job (81%) is rated highly, the share of

researchers that are satisfied with career and mobility perspectives (driven by

career perspectives) are at the lower end (57%). This is in line with the results of

the MORE3 HE EU survey and illustrates the conundrum of embarking on a career

in research – a very high level of intellectual challenge and satisfaction with job-

specific content runs up against uncertain career perspectives or the opportunities

for continually engaging in a satisfactory job. In other words, the results suggest

that researchers’ individual satisfaction with their research jobs is generally high,

but their satisfaction with working conditions for doing that research is much lower

(in particular for funding). Moreover, researchers employed in the US are

particularly satisfied. The shares of satisfied researchers currently working in the

US is above average by 5 to 15 percentage points. The only exception is

satisfaction with financial security, which is lower than the average share (total:

69%, US: 61%).

Figure 67: Satisfaction with working conditions in current position

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your

current position.” - (n=1,483-1,705)

82.0

86.6

81.4

86.0

69.3

61.164.1

76.1

57.3

67.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Social environmentIndividual satisfaction

Financial securityKnowledge production

Career mobility perpectives

Total US


October 2017 129

Various target groups are rather homogeneous with respect to their satisfaction with

working conditions (Table 32). Overall, among mobile EU researchers (TG1) are the

highest shares of satisfied researchers, especially regarding career mobility perspectives

and knowledge production. As most of TG1 researchers are currently working in

Australia, the US and Canada, the quality of research systems in those countries,

particular in the US, are reflected in the answering pattern.

Table 32: Satisfaction with working conditions in current positions by target group

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Career mobility perspectives 65.5% 55.1% 57.6% 53.9%

Financial security 69.2% 70.6% 72.5% 68.3%

Individual satisfaction 84.5% 78.6% 79.6% 81.2%

Knowledge production 72.3% 63.8% 64.1% 60.2%

Social environment 86.0% 79.5% 79.3% 81.4%


Notes:

- Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your current position.”

- (n=162-869)

8.1.1. Non-science related working conditions

Non-science related working conditions might not directly affect the quality and quantity

of research output, but they certainly affect the attractiveness of researcher careers.

Based on the MORE3 Global survey questionnaire, non-science related working conditions

include aspects regarding financial security (job security, pension plan and social

security), social environment and recognition (social status, reputation of employer,

contribution to society), and researchers’ satisfaction at work (intellectual challenge,

dynamic work environment, level of responsibility and quality of life). Each of these

aspects are analysed in detail in the sections below.

8.1.1.1. Job and social security

Overall, 73% of researchers are satisfied with social security and other benefits

associated with their current position and 68% of researchers are satisfied with job

security at their institution (see Figure 68, left panel). A share of 65% is satisfied with

the pension plan at their current research position.

Target groups: Differentiating between target groups reveals only small differences in

terms of satisfaction with social security. It ranges between 76% of EU researchers

currently working abroad (TG1) that are satisfied with social security and 72% of

satisfied non-EU researchers, who have never been mobile (TG4). The range between the

highest (68% of TG3 researchers) and the lowest (62% of TG1 researchers) share of

researchers satisfied with their pension plan is with 6 percentage points only marginally

larger (see Figure 68, right panel). The difference between the highest share of

researchers satisfied with job security at their current position (75% of TG3 researchers)

and the lowest share (59% of TG1 researchers) is 16 percentage points. In comparison

to the other target groups, the share of researchers satisfied with social security is

highest in the group of EU researchers working abroad (TG1). In terms of job security

and pension plans, however, this group shows the lowest shares of contented

researchers.


October 2017 130

Figure 68: Individual satisfaction with job and social security attributes

total (left panel) and differences between target groups (right panel)

Country of current employment: In terms of job security, a low variance between

different country groups is observed (see Figure 69). The highest share of researchers

feeling satisfied with job security is employed in the US, while the lowest share is located

in the category ‘other’ countries, including e.g. Argentina, Colombia, Thailand and

Ukraine. In contrast, the variation between countries with respect to researchers’

satisfaction with pension plans and social security is considerable. The range between the

highest and the lowest shares of researchers satisfied with social security is particularly

large, with only 52% of satisfied researchers in BRICS nations and 80% of satisfied

researchers in (non-EU) OECD countries. Similarly, only 47% of researchers employed in

BRICS countries are satisfied with their pension plans, while 75% of researchers in

Anglo-Saxon countries feel content. In general, researchers working in BRICS nations are

substantially less often satisfied with their pension and social security than in other

country groups, while the differences between the Anglo-Saxon and OECD countries is

less obvious. This obviously mirrors differences in economic development.

68.364.5

73.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

Perc

en

tag

e p

oin

ts

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Job Security Pension

Social Security


October 2017 131

Figure 69: Differences in individual satisfaction with job and social security attributes

between country groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,614/1,509/1,593)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=395/371/396) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=250/238/240) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=169/161/165) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=800/739/792) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your

current position.” - (n=1,614/1,509/1593)

8.1.1.2. Social environment and recognition

In this section, we look into satisfaction with aspects of social environment and

recognition, as part of the non-science related working conditions. They include

contribution to society, social status and reputation of the current employer.

Overall, 82% of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey are satisfied

with the reputation of their employer, 80% of researchers are satisfied with the social

status associated with their position as researchers and 83% are contented with their

contribution to society (see Figure 70, left panel). In comparison with the MORE3 EU HE

survey, those shares are only slightly lower (6 to 7 percentage points) than the shares of

satisfied researchers working in the EU.

Target groups: Differentiating between target groups reveals that with respect to all

three aspects of social environment and recognition, EU researchers currently working

abroad (TG1) show the highest shares of satisfied researchers (see Figure 70, right

panel). The difference between European researchers working abroad and other groups is

particularly large when looking at the shares of researchers satisfied with reputation and

-20.0

-10.0

0.0

10.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

ints


Job Security Pension

Social Securi ty


October 2017 132

social status. However, these results are partly driven by the composition of the sample

in terms of country of current employment (see section 5): the highest shares of TG1

researchers are found in the US and non-EU OECD countries.

Figure 70: Individual satisfaction with social environment: total (left panel) and differences between target groups (right panel)

Country of current employment: Figure 71 shows the deviation of country group

averages from the total average in percentage points. The results indicate that in non-EU

OECD and Anglo-Saxon countries, but in particular in the US, the shares of researchers

being satisfied with their contribution to society is larger than average. Researchers

employed in the US are also much more likely to be satisfied with their reputation than

researchers in other country groups. Interestingly, although above average, the share of

researchers satisfied with the social status is not particularly high in the US in

comparison to other country groups. The non-EU OECD average as well as the average of

researchers employed in the Anglo-Saxon countries (both of which the US is part of) is

higher.

82.4 80.4 83.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

Perc

en

tag

e p

oin

ts

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Reputation Social status

Contribution to society


October 2017 133

Figure 71: Differences in individual satisfaction with social environment between

country groups


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,667/1,635/1,665)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=406/398/393) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=249/246/252) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=174/170/172) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=838/821/848) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your

current position.”

- (n=1,667/1,635/1,665)

8.1.1.3. Individual satisfaction at work

Analogous to the MORE3 EU HE survey, the satisfaction with intellectual challenge,

dynamic work environment, level of responsibility or quality of life are analysed as

‘individual satisfaction at work’ as part of the non-science working conditions. Overall, a

vast majority of 91% of the respondents are satisfied with the intellectual challenge at

work; 87% with the level of responsibility; 74% with the dynamic work environment; and

74% with the quality of life (see Figure 72, left panel). Again, these shares are all lower

than the shares of researchers who are satisfied with the respective aspects in the

MORE3 EU HE survey, however, the pattern stays the same. The approval rates are the

highest for intellectual challenge and level of responsibility at researchers’ working

positions, and are a little lower in terms of quality of life and dynamic work environment.

Target groups: Similar to the result on aspects regarding social environment and

recognition, the shares of researchers who are satisfied with intellectual challenges,

dynamic work environment and quality of life are highest among EU researchers

currently working abroad (TG1). 92% of TG1 researchers are satisfied with the

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

ints


Reputation Social status

Contribution to society


October 2017 134

intellectual challenge at work, 79% with their dynamic work environment and 82% with

their life quality (see Figure 72, right panel). Only with respect to the level of

responsibility does this target group show the lowest shares of researchers who are

satisfied. However, the ranges between the highest and the lowest shares of satisfied

respondents are marginal.

Figure 72: Individual satisfaction at work: total (left panel) and differences between target groups (right panel)

Country of current employment: Figure 73 indicates a number of differences between

groups of countries, similar to the differences above. While more developed countries,

such as the OECD and Anglo-Saxon countries, and the US in particular, show above-

average shares of satisfied researchers in all used categories of satisfaction at work, the

BRICS and other nations are especially below-average with respect to satisfaction with

quality of life and dynamic work environment. The shares of satisfied researchers

employed in countries of the category ‘Other’, which includes e.g. Argentina, Colombia,

Thailand and Ukraine, is rather low with respect to all aspects of satisfaction at work.

This group in particular has the lowest share of respondents satisfied with the intellectual

challenge at their current positions.

74.2

90.7

74.3

86.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

Perc

en

tag

e p

oin

ts

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Dynamic work environment Intellectual challenge

Quality of life Level of responsibility


October 2017 135

Figure 73: Differences in individual satisfaction at work between country groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,670/1,705/1,690/1,687) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=411/414/412/414)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=251/260/258/256) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=174/177/175/176)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=834/854/845/841) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your

current position.” - (n=1,670/1,705/1,690/1,687)

8.1.2. Working conditions for scientific knowledge production

The most talented researchers and their capabilities considerably affect technological

progress and shape the worldwide scientific frontier. To attract excellent foreign

researchers, working conditions relevant for scientific knowledge production are pivotal:

factors like financial support (research funding and infrastructure) and intellectual

support provided to researchers as well as the level of time balance between teaching

and research and research autonomy are essential for improving the performance of the

existing scientific staff and establishing a stock of promising junior scientists.

8.1.2.1. Research funding

Overall, the majority of researchers (61%) who participated in the MORE3 Global survey

are dissatisfied with the availability of research funding, only 39% of researchers feel

content with their funding situation (see Figure 74).

Target groups: With the exception of target group TG1 this is still true after breaking

down the sample into different target groups. Only among the EU researchers currently

-15.0

-10.0

-5.0

0.0

5.0

Pe

rce

nta

ge

po

ints


Dynamic work environment Intel lectual challenge

Quality of li fe Level of responsibil ity


October 2017 136

working abroad, the majority (55% of TG1 researchers) are satisfied with the availability

of research funding.

Figure 74: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by target groups


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,649) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=409) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=249) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=169)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=822) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your

current position.” - (n=1,649)

Country of current employment: Figure 75 shows the differences in terms of

researchers’ satisfaction with research funding between country groups of current

employment. The largest share of researchers that feels satisfied with the availability of

research funding is employed in the US (50%). In all other country groups the majority

of researchers is dissatisfied with their funding situation, in particular in BRICS nations

and ‘other’ countries, including Argentina, Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine (68% and

70% of researchers are dissatisfied respectively). This is, again, in line with the pattern

observed above of a close association between level of development in the country and

satisfaction with a job in research. These varying patterns of satisfaction can be expected

61.0

39.0

45.5

54.5

63.9

36.1

65.1

34.9

67.0

33.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Dissatified Satisfied


October 2017 137

to influence (among other factors) the prevalent asymmetric international mobility of

researchers, e.g. of Chinese researchers moving to the US.97

Figure 75: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country groups


Notes:


- (n=1,649)

Target groups: Similar to researchers’ satisfaction with research funding, differences

between target groups are apparent when looking at the share of researchers satisfied

with the research infrastructure in their current job, particularly for target group TG1.

The group of EU researchers currently working outside Europe seems to be more satisfied

with their given supply than their non-EU research colleagues (see Figure 76). A majority

of 75% of TG1 researchers feel satisfied with their access to research facilities and

equipment, in contrast to only 57% of non-EU researchers who have never been mobile

(TG4). The difference between satisfied TG1 researchers and the sample average of

researchers satisfied with research infrastructure (63% of researchers) is thus 12

percentage points.

97 Docquier, Frédéric, und Hillel Rapoport. „Documenting the Brain Drain of" La crème de la Crème". Three

Case-Studies on International Migration at the Upper Tail of the Education Distribution“. Jahrbucher fur Nationalokonomie und Statistik 229, Nr. 6 (2009): 679–705.Hunter, Rosalind S., Andrew J. Oswald, and Bruce G. Charlton. ‘The Elite Brain Drain*’. The Economic Journal 119, no. 538 (2009).

58.8

41.2

49.8

50.2

57.7

42.3

67.8

32.2

69.8

30.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 138

Figure 76: Individual satisfaction with research facilities and equipment, by target

group



- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=169) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=822) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of current employment: In comparison to research funding, the range

between the highest and the lowest shares of researchers satisfied with their access to

research facilities and equipment is equally high when looking at different country

groups. While nearly eight out of ten researchers employed in the US feel content with

research facilities (77%), only half of the researchers being employed in BRICS countries

(53%) would agree (see Figure 77). The share of researchers dissatisfied with research

facilities is even higher (59%) in countries of the category ‘other’ (e.g. Argentina,

Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine). Hardly any differences are observed between Anglo-

Saxon and (non-EU) OECD countries.

37.1

62.9

25.0

75.0

38.4

61.6

37.3

62.7

42.6

57.4

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 139

Figure 77: Individual satisfaction with research facilities and equipment, by country

groups


Notes: - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


8.1.2.2. Intellectual support

This section relates to researchers’ satisfaction with collaboration with leading scientists

and with quality of education and training. First, collaboration with leading scientists can

be a strong driver of scientific performance and output. Of course, to some extent the

opportunity to collaborate with international scientists is also related to the researcher’s

individual willingness to be mobile, which has implications for research policy, in

particular in relation to supporting measures for mobile scientists (Jonkers – Tijssen,

2008)98.

Target groups: Also in the MORE3 Global survey the share of non-EU researchers who

have never been mobile in the past (TG4) and who are dissatisfied because of the lack of

opportunities to cooperate with other leading scientists, is the highest (see Figure 78).

Four out of ten TG4 researchers (39%) are dissatisfied with the opportunity to work with

leading researchers. In contrast, not even a third of the EU researchers currently working

abroad (27%) would agree. The vast majority of EU researchers working outside the EU

(73% of TG1 researchers) is satisfied with their cooperation possibilities. In total, 35% of

researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey are dissatisfied with their

opportunities to work with leading scientists.

98 Jonkers, Koen, and Robert Tijssen. "Chinese researchers returning home: Impacts of international mobility

on research collaboration and scientific productivity." Scientometrics 77.2 (2008): 309-333.

27.7

72.3

22.8

77.2

30.6

69.4

46.9

53.1

58.9

41.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 140

Figure 78: Individual satisfaction with collaboration with leading scientists, by target

groups



- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=162) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=766) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of country employment: Again, when differentiating between county groups

the exceptional position of the US is apparent (see Figure 79). Only 18% of researchers

employed in the US felt dissatisfied with opportunities to work with leading researchers,

while in BRICS nations 42% of researchers feel dissatisfied. Similar to researchers’

satisfaction with research facilities, differences in the shares of satisfied researchers

between Anglo-Saxon and non-EU OECD countries are small.

34.6

65.4

27.3

72.7

34.5

65.5

32.1

67.9

38.9

61.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 141

Figure 79: Individual satisfaction with collaboration with leading scientists, by

country groups



- (n=1,579)

We now turn to the second item of this group, satisfaction with quality of education and

training. Among all target groups, the level of contentment with the quality of training

and education is generally higher than with collaboration with leading experts. In total,

74% of researchers are satisfied with the quality of training and education at their

institute (see Figure 80). In comparison with the MORE3 EU HE survey, however, the

share of satisfied researchers is lower (by 12 percentage points).

Target groups: Comparing different target groups reveals no considerable differences:

29% of non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU

countries (TG3) and 27% non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (TG4) are

dissatisfied with the quality of training and education. 26% of EU researchers currently

working outside the EU (TG1) and 24% of non-EU researchers who have worked in the

EU in the past (TG2) are also dissatisfied.

Country of current employment: In contrast, differences between country groups are

more pronounced (see Figure 80). The highest shares of dissatisfied researchers (33%

respectively) are employed in the BRICS nations and in the country group ‘other’ (e.g.

Argentina, Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine), while the lowest share of dissatisfied

researchers is again located in the US (13%). This result is in line with international

university rankings that regularly place universities in the US in top positions. Research

universities in the US are not only in the vanguard according to composite rankings

(including several aspects like research, citations, teaching and sometimes even industry

income etc.), but also when ordered according to their teaching scores only (see e.g. The

27.1

72.9

18.2

81.8

31.3

68.7

41.6

58.4

42.3

57.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 142

Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2016-201799). The US-American

higher education system is overall very heterogeneous, with very low quality institutions

alongside top institutions. Our results seem to reflect respondents working at top or at

least high-quality institutions, as international mobility to low-quality institutions is

probably low. Interestingly, the share of researchers dissatisfied with training and

education is by 8 percentage points higher in the group of Anglo-Saxon countries, of

which the US is part (21%).

Figure 80: Individual satisfaction with quality of training and education, by country

groups


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,612) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


99 https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings

20.8

79.2

13.2

86.8

23.4

76.6

33.1

66.9

32.8

67.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 143

8.1.2.3. Time balance and research autonomy

The balance between research activities, administrative tasks and teaching is a crucial

factor that affects scientific knowledge production. The same is true for the level of

research autonomy that is granted to researchers as it clearly affects the extent to which

a researcher can dedicate her time to her own research subject at hand.

Research and teaching are often seen as symbiotic and hard to separate. Teaching

activities are essential for the scientific knowledge production for a number of reasons:

recruitment of talented young scientists, transmission of ‘taste for science’ and

enrichment of the current research and researchers’ basic stock of knowledge (Marsh -

Hattie, 2002, Roach - Sauermann, 2010)100. However, teaching also ties resources to

time that otherwise could be used to pursue research activities and the individual level of

teaching load and quality often has less impact on research career advancements than

academic publications. Literature indicates that a moderate teaching load is likely to be

the most attractive for researchers (Robertson - Bond, 2001, and Janger - Nowotny,

2016)101.

In total, only 57% of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey are

satisfied with the balance between teaching and research time at their current position

(see Figure 81). In comparison to the MORE3 EU HE survey, that means that the share of

content global researchers is 10 percentage points lower than that of EU-based

researchers.

Target groups: However, looking at the different target groups reveals that EU

researchers currently working outside Europe show a considerably higher share of

satisfied researchers than other groups. 67% of TG1 researchers are satisfied with the

balance between teaching and research, while only 53% of non-EU researchers who have

never been mobile (TG4) would agree. This could imply that mobile researchers are in a

better position to pick jobs associated with a more favorable teaching load. To a lesser

extent, language barriers could be another explanation for lower teaching loads of

incoming researchers. However, the establishment of a causal relationship based on the

given data is not possible.

100 Marsh, H. W., Hattie, J., (2002) "The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness:

Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs?", J. High. Educ., 73(5), pp. 603–641. Roach, M., Sauermann, H., (2010) "A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research careers in industry", Res. Policy, 39(3), pp. 422–434.

101 Robertson, J., Bond, C. H., (2001) "Experiences of the relation between teaching and research: What do academics value?", High. Educ. Res. Dev., 20(1), pp. 5–19. Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683.


October 2017 144

Figure 81: Individual satisfaction with balance between teaching and research time,

by target groups

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,483)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=345) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=237) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=163) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=738) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of current employment: Figure 82 indicates differences between country

groups of employment. In particular, the share of dissatisfied researchers employed in

BRICS countries, but also in the groups ‘other’ and ‘Anglo-Saxon’, are rather high at

50%, 46% and 42% respectively. Again, researchers employed in the US are contrasting.

Only every third researcher (33%) in the US feels dissatisfied with the balance between

teaching and research time at his/her current position. This points to another factor that

partly explains the generally perceived high level of attractiveness of the research system

in the US.

42.7

57.3

33.0

67.0

42.6

57.4

41.7

58.3

47.4

52.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 145


by country groups

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes:

- Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of current employment: The range between the highest and the lowest share

of researchers satisfied with their research autonomy is higher when comparing different

country groups (see Figure 83). In line with the results above, the highest share of

satisfied researchers is again employed in the US (94%), while the lowest share of

researchers satisfied with research autonomy can be found in ‘other’ (e.g. Argentina,

Colombia, Thailand and Ukraine) and BRICS countries (78% and 82% respectively). In

the middle, in terms of research autonomy, the Anglo-Saxon and (non-EU) OECD show

equally high levels of satisfied researchers (90% and 89%).

40.1

59.9

32.6

67.4

40.1

59.9

49.5

50.5

46.4

53.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 146

Figure 83: Individual satisfaction with research autonomy, by country groups


Notes: - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


8.1.3. Career and mobility perspectives as working conditions

Analogous to the MORE3 EU HE survey, we treat career perspectives as a cross-cutting

issue as they matter for both scientific knowledge production and for perspectives of job

security and financial security. The analysis of the MORE3 EU HE survey indicates that

mobility perspectives and collaboration patterns are interrelated, and as a result mobility

perspectives also affect scientific knowledge production.

In general, the share of researchers that is satisfied with their mobility perspectives is

only moderately large. Only 53% of all researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global

survey feel content with their mobility perspectives (see Figure 84). This share is 20

percentage points lower than the share of EU28 researchers satisfied with their mobility

perspective in the MORE3 EU HE survey (73%).

Target groups: However, comparing different target groups shows that the share of EU

researchers currently working abroad (TG1) that are satisfied with their mobility

perspectives is – although still lower than the EU28 average- much higher (67% of TG1

researchers) than the average share of the Global survey. Interestingly, the group with

the highest share of researchers dissatisfied with their mobility perspectives is the group

of non-EU researchers who have never been mobile (47% of TG4 researchers). This

result raises the question as to whether researchers who have never been mobile

abstained from doing so because of their lack of will or because of the lack of

opportunities. Later in this section various factors acting as barriers to mobility are

9.4

90.6

6.5

93.5

10.8

89.2

18.2

81.8

22.3

77.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 147

discussed, revealing that in the group of non-mobile researchers (TG4) problems related

to obtaining funds for research and mobility are mentioned most often.

Figure 84: Individual satisfaction with mobility perspectives, by target groups


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,564) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=380) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=242) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=161)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=781) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of current employment: Figure 77 indicates considerable differences between

country groups of employment. The range between the highest share of researchers

satisfied with their mobility perspectives (63% of researchers employed in the US) and

the lowest share (41% of researchers in ‘other’ countries) is more than 20 percentage

points. Also the share of satisfied researchers employed in BRICS countries (45%) is in

comparison considerably lower.

47.1

52.9

33.4

66.6

48.8

51.2

49.1

50.9

52.9

47.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 148

Figure 85: Individual satisfaction with mobility perspectives, by country groups



- (n=1,564)

The results on career perspectives are similar to those on mobility perspectives. Overall,

62% of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey feel satisfied with their

current career perspectives (see Figure 86).

Target groups: The highest share of researchers satisfied with respect to career

perspectives can be found in the group of EU researchers currently working abroad (64%

of TG1 researchers), while the lowest share is located in the target of non-EU researchers

who have worked in the EU in the past (59% of TG2 researchers).

40.6

59.4

36.9

63.1

42.5

57.5

55.4

44.6

59.1

40.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 149

Figure 86: Individual satisfaction with career perspectives, by target groups


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,611) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=404)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=248) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=162) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=797) - Based on question 26: “Please indicate your satisfaction with each factor as it relates to your


Country of current employment: Differences between country groups of employment

are only slightly smaller than in comparison to the satisfaction with mobility perspectives

(see Figure 87). The lowest shares of researchers satisfied with their career perspectives

are employed in BRICS and ‘other’ countries (55% respectively), while the highest share

is located in the US (72%). Again, differences between Anglo-Saxon and (non-EU) OECD

countries are negligible.

38.4

61.6

35.6

64.4

41.1

58.9

35.8

64.2

39.4

60.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 150

Figure 87: Individual satisfaction with career perspectives, by country groups


current position.”

- (n=1,611)

8.2. Attractiveness based on direct comparison between research systems

In this subsection, we analyse the information gained from the directly targeted

questions 50 and 60 of the MORE3 Global survey which compare a number of aspects of

the research system outside and inside the EU. Researchers eligible to respond to these

questions are those who have knowledge of at least one EU and non-EU system:

Researchers with EU citizenship who currently work abroad (TG1) (Figure 88);

Non-EU Researchers who have been mobile to the EU (TG2) (Figure 89).

Overall, whether researchers in the target groups for direct comparison of research

systems appreciate the non-EU research system as being either better or worse than the

EU system regarding various aspects depends heavily on their experience, i.e. which

system they know.

Remarkably, European researchers (TG1) are overall less positive about the EU research

system than the non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU (TG2). TG1

researchers are more positive than negative about pension plan and social security in

Europe compared to their current employment outside Europe, but also about the quality

of education and training. TG2 researchers deem all aspects better in the EU than in their

current position outside the EU.

34.7

65.3

28.0

72.0

35.5

64.5

44.7

55.3

45.0

55.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 151

Figure 88: Comparative perspective of working outside the EU versus working inside

the EU (TG1; better refers to better outside the EU)


Notes: - Based on question 50: “How does working in … compare to working as a researcher in Europe?

Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in … than in Europe.” - (n=417)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent

Pension plan

Quality of training and education

Social security and other benefits

Administrative burden

Job security

Working with leading scientistis

Balance teaching and research time

Ease of commercialisation of research results

Ease of industry collaboration

Research autonomy

Access to research facilities and equipment

Mobility perspectives

Quality of life

Availability of research funding

Attractive career paths

Availability of suitable position

Remuneration

Better Similar

Worse


October 2017 152

Figure 89: Comparative perspective of working in the EU versus working outside the

EU (TG2; better refers to better in the EU)


Notes: - Based on question 60: “How does working as a researcher in Europe compare to your current

employment in …? Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in Europe than in ...” - (n=263).

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Percent

Research autonomy

Job security

Availability of suitable position

Political situation

Pension plan


Attractive career paths

Balance teaching and research time

Remuneration



Quality of life

Ease of commercialisation of research results


Ease of industry collaboration


Mobility perspectives

Working with leading scientistis

Better Similar

Worse


October 2017 153

Figure 90 contrasts the share of respondents assessing the EU research system as more

attractive against the share of researchers who assess it as less attractive. The graph

contains net shares (i.e. share of “better in the EU” minus share of “worse in the EU”, in

percentage points), and the line where better and worse are equally balanced, taking the

value 0, is shown explicitly as the line “EU = outside EU”. This implies that lines within or

below the latter line indicate “EU = worse” (taking negative values), and lines outside or

above indicate “EU = better”, taking positive values. The top panel is based on responses

from EU researchers currently working abroad (TG1), while the bottom panel focuses on

non-EU researchers currently working outside the EU, but who had at least one mobility

experience inside the EU within the last 10 years (TG2).

The panels summarise more detailed categories:

1) “Remuneration and other material factors” includes remuneration, social security

and other benefits, quality of life, job security, an pension plan;

2) “Conditions for scientific knowledge production” includes availability of research

funding, access to research facilities and equipment, working with leading

scientists, research autonomy, administrative burden, and balance between

teaching and research time;

3) “Engagement with industry” includes ease of commercialisation of research

results, and ease of industry collaboration.

Non-summarised categories are:

4) mobility perspectives;

5) attractive career paths;

6) the availability of suitable positions;

7) the quality of education and training.

In case of the non-EU researchers in TG2, an additional item was added to question 60 in

terms of:

8) the political situation.

Figure 131 and Figure 132 in annex 9 include all the individual categories; Table 33

below


October 2017 154

Figure 90 provides all the data for the figure.

As in the previous analyses in this chapter, the responses of the survey are clustered into

country groups by researchers’ country of current employment. However, in the case of

the bottom panel (non-EU researchers mobile to the EU; TG2), there are only 17

researchers now working in the US, so the US was dropped as a separate category from

the bottom panel. Nevertheless, the results provide some first insights into the relative

attractiveness of the EU as a place for research.


October 2017 155

Figure 90: Comparison between working outside the EU and working inside the EU as

a researcher

EU researchers abroad

Non-EU researchers with EU mobility experience in the past


- EU researchers who work abroad (TG1) and non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past (TG2) are each grouped by their current country of employment.

- Based on question 50: “How does working in … compare to working as a researcher in Europe?

Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in … than in Europe.” and question 60: “How does working as a researcher in Europe compare to your current employment in …? Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in Europe than in ...”

- (top graph/left half of the table: n=415, bottom graph/right half of the table: n=261)

Career path

Condition for scientificknowledge production

Engagement with industry

MobilityPosition

Remuneration

Training

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75

EU = outside EU Non-EU OECD

BRICS Others

USA

Career path

Condition for scientific knowledge production

Engagement with industry

Mobility

Political situation

Position

Remuneration

Training

-50

-25

0

25

50

75


BRICS Others


October 2017 156

Table 33: Comparison between working outside the EU and working inside the EU as

a researcher: full set of data of the figure above; negative numbers indicate higher share of researchers who think that it is better outside the EU than inside.

EU researchers abroad Non-EU researchers

mobile to the EU

USA Non-EU

OECD BRICS Others

Non-EU OECD

BRICS Others

Career path -63.6 -27.2 -5.4 -16.7 26.7 20.0 40.0

Condition for scientific

knowledge production -42.9 -12.1 8.8 -5.6 34.5 53.8 60.9

Administrative burden -26.2 6.1 16.7 -12.0 37.6 38.0 54.5

Autonomy -50.0 -29.2 -18.4 -12.5 13.2 29.3 24.3

Facilities -55.1 -16.3 15.4 17.4 33.6 63.8 78.4

Working with leading

scientist -66.7 4.9 52.6 29.2 52.1 83.9 84.2

Research funding -51.2 -19.6 -10.8 -20.8 41.5 54.9 72.2

Teaching -8.1 -18.6 -2.9 -34.8 28.8 53.1 51.5

Engagement with industry -70.6 -5.5 10.5 16.3 27.9 59.0 64.2

Commercialisation of

results -71.4 -4.3 21.1 21.4 20.6 56.1 59.3

Industry -69.8 -6.7 0.0 11.1 35.2 61.9 69.2

Mobility -66.3 -11.6 -8.6 12.0 47.3 72.0 72.7

Position -79.5 -26.0 -17.9 -29.2 14.4 12.8 18.2

Remuneration 13.9 -22.2 33.8 10.7 9.0 38.4 50.9

Remuneration -64.8 -47.4 28.2 -40.0 3.9 57.4 54.8

Social security 57.8 -2.5 51.4 28.0 16.7 33.3 51.7

Pension 48.2 4.9 65.7 64.0 6.8 23.7 44.0

Job security 11.6 -12.7 8.3 21.7 -2.1 14.6 39.3

Quality of life 16.7 -53.4 15.4 -20.0 19.9 63.0 64.9

Training -41.2 11.4 51.4 20.8 36.2 60.4 63.9

Political situation - - - - -0.8 45.8 67.7

EU researchers currently working abroad: comparing working outside the EU

with working inside the EU

In the top panel, EU researchers who currently work in economically developed non-EU

OECD countries rate the EU as worse than their current country of employment with

respect to most broad categories, with the exception of education and training. At a

detailed level (table above) there are also slightly positive shares for administrative

burden, working with leading scientists and pension plan.

The results for the US in the top panel (based on 91 respondents) are particularly

striking, as all shares with the exception of “remuneration and other material factors” are

negative, indicating that EU researchers working in the US right now perceive the US to

be far better across the categories, including the quality of education and training.

Among conditions for scientific knowledge production, a detailed look at all the categories

(cf. Table 33 or Figure 131 and Figure 132 in the annex) reveals that there are very few

researchers who think that working with leading scientists, research funding and career

paths are better in the EU than in the US.


October 2017 157

This confirms the picture from the MORE3 EU HE survey and is also in line with existing

research. This literature contains more anecdotal evidence from interviews with mobile

researchers who are generally positive about the quality of undergraduate training and

education in EU countries (bearing in mind EU heterogeneity), but who then find better

working conditions for a career in science in the US, e.g. due to earlier independence

(autonomy), collaboration with leading scientists and attractive career paths (tenure

track models which link a tenured position to a researcher’s output only).102 It is also in

line with several bibliometric studies on mobility and scientific performance, which both

find asymmetric mobility of talented scientists to the US and better scientific performance

at the aggregate level in nearly all scientific fields, even if there are of course excellent

researcher groups in the EU.103

The ease of commercialising research results or of collaborating with industry is also

perceived to be much better in the US than in the EU, similar to the availability of

research positions more generally. Within the group “remuneration and other material

factors”, the EU is perceived to be better than the US in social security, quality of life, job

security and pension plan. This contrasts the very negative value in “remuneration”, i.e.

the US is perceived to pay much better salaries than EU countries.104

Again, this confirms the picture from the MORE3 EU HE survey, with the EU seen to be

better concerning quality of life and social security, while key career-related job

characteristics are perceived to be better in the US. International evidence and the MORE

surveys show that researchers move away from their home country for career-related

reasons such as independence, working with leading scientists and attractive career

paths, while they move back for personal or family reasons105. This means that the

current advantages of the EU in terms of quality of life and job characteristics related to

social and job security work less as drivers of attractiveness, or as attractors of

researchers, than conditions which influence the scientific productivity of researchers

(see also section 8.3).

Turning asymmetric international mobility into symmetric mobility among researchers will

hence require an improvement of factors which influence scientific productivity, such as

attractive career paths, research funding and research autonomy, in addition to ensuring

more generally the availability of suitable positions. Even if these factors could be

improved quickly, it would take time before any effects would be felt, as the top leading

scientists in the US attract more leading scientists, creating persistence. Moreover,

interest in return mobility (in the next year) is low among later stage researchers as

shown in section 7, so that national programmes to attract senior researchers back to

Europe may be limited in their effectiveness (cf. for example the FiDiPro Finland

102 See on this discussion Janger, J., Pechar, H., "Organisatorische Rahmenbedingungen für die Entstehung und

Nachhaltigkeit wissenschaftlicher Qualität an Österreichs Universitäten", WIFO, Vienna, 2010 as well as Janger, J., and Nowotny, K Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy,

45(8), pp. 1672–1683. 103 See, e.g., Rodríguez-Navarro, Alonso, and Francis Narin. ‘European Paradox or Delusion—Are European

Science and Economy Outdated?’ Science and Public Policy. Accessed 22 May 2017. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx021.; Albarrán, Pedro, Juan A. Crespo, Ignacio Ortuño, and Javier Ruiz-Castillo. ‘A Comparison of the Scientific Performance of the U.S. and the European Union at the Turn of the 21st Century’. Scientometrics 85, no. 1 (20 April 2010): 329–44. doi:10.1007/s11192-010-0223-7; Bonaccorsi, Andrea, Tindaro Cicero, Peter Haddawy, and Saeed-UL Hassan. ‘Explaining the Transatlantic Gap in Research Excellence’. Scientometrics, 11 November 2016, 1–25. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2180-2; Hunter, Rosalind S., Andrew J. Oswald, and Bruce G. Charlton. ‘The Elite Brain Drain*’. The Economic Journal 119, no. 538 (2009): F231–F251. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02274.x.

104 As the EU survey has shown, the results need to be interpreted against the background of substantial heterogeneity between EU Member States.

105 See Stephan, P., Franzoni, C., & Scellato, G. (2013). Choice of Country by the Foreign Born for PhD and Postdoctoral Study: A Sixteen-Country Perspective (No. w18809). National Bureau of Economic Research, Janger, J., and Nowotny, K Janger, J., Nowotny, K., (2016) "Job choice in academia", Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1672–1683.


October 2017 158

distinguished Professor Programme in Finland or the Odysseus programme in Flanders,

Belgium). As it may be difficult to encourage leading scientists who are established at top

research institutions back to the EU, it will be important to try and attract the young and

talented, e.g. through attractive career paths such as the tenure track model which, in

the US, is under pressure.106 Mobility among researchers should not be seen as a zero

sum game, however – what is important is brain circulation rather than brain drain, or

turning asymmetric mobility into symmetric mobility.

With respect to emerging countries (the BRICS and the other countries) in the top panel,

the assessment of the EU is generally better with regard to the categories “remuneration

and other material factors”, quality of education and training and engagement with

industry. The EU is generally assessed as worse with regard to the attractiveness of

career paths and the availability of positions. Researchers who are currently working in

the BRICS see conditions for scientific knowledge production as better in the EU and

mobility perspectives as worse in the EU, while it is the other way round for researchers

currently working in other countries (non-EU non-OECD countries). A higher share of

researchers from both country groups, however, sees working with leading scientists in

the EU as better than in the countries where they work now.

Non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past: comparing working in

the EU with working outside the EU

The bottom panel on the non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past gives a

very different picture, in that the EU is perceived to be better than the non-EU countries

of the OECD, with the exception of the political situation, where shares of “better” and

“worse” are in the balance and, at the detailed level, job security. The share of

researchers who see something as better in the EU is particularly high for working with

leading scientists, research funding and mobility perspectives. The number of researchers

who are currently working in the US is too small for consideration as a separate group.

In contrast with EU researchers who are currently working in the BRICS and in other

countries, non-EU researchers currently working there and who have been to the EU in

the past, perceive the EU to be better across all categories. They perceive the EU as

being even “more” better than for researchers now working in non-EU OECD countries.

This is plausible, as higher education institutions in economically advanced countries are

likely to offer more attractive conditions for research.

Contrasting the two target groups by country of employment hence leads to a mixed

picture for the perception of the attractiveness of the EU. If the EU wants to become a

leading player in science, then the perception of the differences between the US and the

EU clearly points to the need for further efforts at increasing the attractiveness of the EU.

However, by comparison with researchers from non-EU OECD countries in total, the

picture is more mixed, with EU researchers more critical of the EU than non-EU

researchers who have been mobile to the EU. This result is partly driven by researchers

working in the US, amounting to a higher share among EU researchers abroad than

among non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the US. Among researchers in the

BRICS or in other, mostly emerging or developing countries, the assessment of the EU is

much more positive, with some exceptions among EU researchers abroad (research

funding, facilities, autonomy, time balance teaching research).

The figures above do not show the share of researchers who responded that similarities

existed inside and outside the EU. For reference, the next two figures (Figure 109 and

Figure 110) provide these shares across all countries of current employment for the EU

researchers working abroad (TG1) and for non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in

the past (TG2). The picture is similar as above though, in that similarity is perceived to

106 See Stephan, P., The economics of science, 2012.


October 2017 159

be low (i.e., a majority of respondents perceives conditions better or worse) among EU

researchers for items such as remuneration, the availability of positions, research

funding, the attractiveness of career paths (categories were the EU was perceived to be

worse on balance). For items such as quality of life, pension plan and social security, the

EU was perceived to be better on balance. For the quality of training and education,

research autonomy, job security and the administrative burden, almost half of

respondents indicate that they are similar between the EU and their current country of

employment.

The perception of non-EU researchers having worked in the EU in the past (TG2) is

diverse (low level of ‘similar’) also for research funding and remuneration, but in addition

to mobility perspectives, the ease of collaborating with industry or commercialising

research results and the quality of life. A high share of respondents finds research

autonomy, job security and the quality of education and training similar, and in addition

the balance between teaching and research.


an EU researcher abroad, factors which were perceived as similar

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only EU researchers who work outside the EU (TG1). - Based on question 50: “How does working in … compare to working as a researcher in Europe?

Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in … than in Europe.” - (n= 230-408)

51.649.4

46.9 46.444.1 43.0 42.4

39.137.1 36.7 36.1

33.8 33.130.5

27.424.9

22.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Train

ing

Auto

nomy

Job se

curity

Adm

inist

rativ

e burd

en

Lead

ing sc

ientis

ts

Com

ercia

lisatio

n of r

esults

Teachin

g bala

nce

Mob

ility pers

pecitves

Indust

ry

Facilit

ies

Socia

l securit

y

Pension

Qua

lity of life

Care

er path

Researc

h fund

ing

Positio

n

Remunera

tion


October 2017 160


a non-EU researcher who worked in the EU in the past, factors which were perceived as similar

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU (TG2). - Based on question 60: “How does working as a researcher in Europe compare to your current

employment in …? Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in Europe than in ...” - (n= 138-256)

8.3. Motives, barriers and effects

Motives for mobility indirectly shed light on attractiveness in a comparative perspective,

particularly if mobility is not generally motivated by a lack of opportunity in the home

country (cf. section 8.3.1.1). While motives for mobility reflect the expectations of a

researcher towards the research system he or she is going to move to, effects of mobility

mirror outcomes of the mobility experience and can be seen as a kind of reality check for

the expectations associated with mobility, e.g. whether expectations are met by actual

conditions for knowledge production. Finally, barriers to mobility are relevant when non-

EU researchers would be interested in principle to move to the EU because they think

that it is an attractive location for a research career, but various hurdles for mobility

prevent them from doing so. This provides additional insight for policy-relevant analysis

in terms of how to make it easier for non-EU researchers to come and work in the EU.

8.3.1. Motives

Both mobile EU (TG1) and non-EU researchers (TG2 and TG3) were questioned about the

degree of freedom in their decision to become mobile and the factors that were perceived

as drivers/motives for moving. Similar to the MORE3 EU HE survey, the MORE3 Global

survey includes questions on their escape, expected and exchange mobility, their motives

for mobility in general, the main motives for mobility per move (with or without changing

employer). The results are discussed in more detail below.

58.6

47.545.5 44.6 43.9

39.0 38.5 38.2 37.135.5

33.8 33.3 32.9 31.930.2 29.7 29.2 29.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Auto

nomy

Job se

curity

Teachin

g bala

nce

Train

ing

Politic

al s

ituatio

n

Adm

inist

rativ

e burd

en

Pension

Positio

n

Socia

l securit

y

Facilit

ies

Care

er path

Qua

lity of life

Indust

ry

Com

ercia

lisatio

n of r

esults

Lead

ing sc

ientis

ts

Remunera

tion

Researc

h fund

ing

Mob

ility pers

pecitves


October 2017 161

8.3.1.1. Escape, expected and exchange mobility

Similar to the MORE3 HE survey, the Global survey directly asked mobile researchers

about the degree of freedom they had in their decision to become mobile (for an

overview of the definitions linked to the question in the MORE3 Global survey, see Table

34 below).

Table 34: Escape, expected and exchange mobility

Escape mobility occurs when a researcher is ‘pushed’ away from his or her

environment because of lack of funding, positions etc. Escape mobility entails that

researchers are mobile because they need to be so if they want to pursue a career

as a researcher.

Felt forced to move because there were no options for a research career in

home country;

Felt forced to move because international mobility is a requirement for career

progression.

The term expected mobility is used for those researchers for whom mobility is

perceived as a ‘natural’ step in a research career but don’t feel obliged to move.

Chose to move to improve working conditions;

Chose to move because international mobility – though not required – will be

appreciated in their career and working conditions.

Exchange mobility refers to those situation in which a researcher chooses to move

(positive motivation, self-chosen) with the aim of exchanging knowledge and work

in an international network or with the aim to use international experience as a way

to boost his or her career.

Chose to move for the opportunities international mobility offers in terms of

networking and knowledge exchange.

About one third of the respondents (researchers currently working outside the EU)

indicated that they chose to move for the opportunities that international mobility offers

in terms of networking and knowledge exchange (exchange mobility). About 28%

indicated that they felt forced to move (escape mobility) and 25% that they chose to

move as a ‘natural’ step in a research career (expected mobility) (see Table 35). About

15% of the respondents indicated that ‘another’ situation was applicable to their decision

to move. The majority of respondents (58%) did indicate that they chose to move.

Target group: EU researchers who currently work outside the EU (TG1) were specifically

questioned about their decision to work outside the EU. 37% engaged in escape mobility,

where the largest majority (33 percentage points) felt forced to move because there

were no options for a research career in their home country. 22% of the mobility

concerned expected mobility and 22% chose to move for the opportunities international

mobility offers in terms of networking and knowledge exchange (exchange mobility).

From the results we derive that EU researchers work abroad much more because they

had to do so in order to continue their career. By contrast, non-EU researchers came to

the EU for networking and knowledge exchange, presumably then returning back to their

old employer to continue their career there (see also section 7.1.1). Moves from a non-

EU country to a non-EU country (TG3) are more characterised by a quest for improving

working conditions.

The same question was asked to the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in

the past (TG2) about this EU work experience. Half of the researchers indicated that they

chose to move for the opportunities international mobility offers in terms of networking

and knowledge exchange (exchange mobility). About 14% felt forced to move to the EU

(escape mobility) and 10% engaged in expected mobility.


October 2017 162

Non-EU researchers who were mobile in the past but not towards the EU (TG3) most

frequently engage in expected mobility (32%), followed by escape mobility (25%) and

exchange mobility (25%).

Table 35: Escape, expected and exchange mobility

Total

Move outside the EU

TG1

Move to the EU

TG2

Move to a non-EU country

TG3

N=777 N=461 N=263 N=53

Forced: no options for research career 22.4% 33.1% 6.1% 18.9%

Forced: required for career progression 5.6% 4.3% 7.6% 5.7%

Chose: improve working conditions 12.6% 12.5% 9.9% 26.4%

Chose: appreciated in career and working conditions

12.4% 9.8% 17.9% 5.7%

Chose: networking and knowledge exchange 32.6% 22.3% 50.6% 24.5%

Other 14.5% 18% 8% 18.9%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 49, 59 and 75: “Which of the following situation would you say is most

applicable to your decision to move/work respectively outside Europe, towards Europe and to a specific third country (different than their country of citizenship).

- Escape mobility: Forced because no options for research career or because requirement for career progression

- Expected mobility: Improve working conditions or appreciated in career and working conditions

- Exchange mobility: Networking and knowledge exchange

Country of citizenship TG1: Figure 93 provides more insights on motives for mobility

by country of citizenship. For TG1, only Italy, Spain, France, German and the United

Kingdom are considered for this analysis, as the other countries have very low response

rates. The results show that, among those countries, the highest shares of forced

mobility of EU researchers who currently work outside the EU are found among the

Italian and Spanish respondents (approx. 56% and 44%). The lowest share of forced

mobility (approx. 20%) are observed amongst the UK researchers who currently work

outside Europe. This is consistent with the analysis in the MORE3 EU Survey and other

studies, which point to structural issues such as (lack of) available positions and funding

in the Italian and Spanish research systems, and to the attractiveness of the UK

system107.

107 See also Janger, J., Strauss, A., Campbell, D. „Academic careers: a cross-country perspective“.

WWWforEurope Working Paper Series 37 (2013).


October 2017 163

Figure 93: Escape, expected and exchange mobility, by country of citizenship (TG1)

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 49: “Which of the following situation would you say is most applicable to

your decision to move/work outside Europe.

- Escape mobility: Forced because no options for research career or because requirement for career progression.

- Expected mobility: Improve working conditions or appreciated in career and working conditions.

- Exchange mobility: Networking and knowledge exchange. - Countries with less than 30 observations are excluded. - (n=270).

Career stage TG1: Figure 94 provides more insights in escape, expected and exchange

mobility of EU researchers with respect to their move outside the EU. R3 and R4

researchers indicate more frequently than R1 and R2 researchers that in their decision to

move/work outside the EU they felt forced. On the contrary, the choice to move outside

the EU to improve working conditions is higher amongst R3 and R4 researchers.

20.3

1.4

18.9

5.4

24.3

29.7

30.9

5.5

10.9

7.3

20.0

25.5

28.8

13.5

9.6

21.2

21.2

5.8

44.1

2.9

17.6

8.8

14.7

11.8

56.4

1.8

9.1

3.6

14.5

14.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

United KingdomGermanyFranceSpainItaly

Forced: no options for research career Forced: required for career progression

Chose: improve working conditions Chose: appreciated in career and working conditions

Chose: networking and knowledge exchange Other


October 2017 164

Figure 94: Escape, expected and exchange mobility, by careerstage


- Based on question 59: “Which of the following situation would you say is most applicable to your decision to move/work towards Europe and question 10 “In which carer stage would you

currently situate yourself?” - Escape mobility: Forced because no options for research career or because requirement for

career progression. - Expected mobility: Improve working conditions or appreciated in career and working

conditions.

- Exchange mobility: Networking and knowledge exchange. - (n =417)

Country of citizenship TG2: The picture is different if we look at the mobility patterns

of non-EU researchers who have been mobile towards the EU in the past (TG2) and their

decision to move to/work in the EU. The forced mobility amongst researchers from the

Anglo-Saxon countries and non-EU OECD towards the EU is lower (less than 10%)

compared to the forced mobility amongst researchers from BRICS-countries and others.

The exchange mobility with respect to improving working conditions is highest amongst

researchers from other countries (19%) and the exchange mobility for networking and

knowledge exchange is highest amongst Anglo-Saxon researchers and researchers from

non-EU OECD countries (respectively 57% and 54%).

27.7

6.9

5.2

16.2

27.7

16.2

36.9

2.5

17.6

5.3

18.4

19.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

R1 and R2 R3 and R4





October 2017 165


Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 59: “Which of the following situation would you say is most applicable to

your decision to move/work towards Europe.

- (n = 1,727) - (Anglo-Saxon n = 120; Non-EU OECD n = 153 ; BRICS n = 63; Other n = 47)

8.3.1.2. Motives for > 3 month mobility: towards the EU and outside the EU

In this section, the importance of researchers’ motives in their decision to move to/work

outside the EU for TG1 and to move to/work in the EU in the past for TG2 will be

presented. The table under Figure 96 shows the shares of researchers who identify each

of the motives as being important for their move to respectively a non-EU country, an EU

country, and a third country (other than their country of citizenship). Note that the

MORE3 Global survey asked twice for motives: once the respondents could choose

several motives out of a comprehensive list of motives, a second time they were asked to

single out the main motive (this at the level of the last three moves done in the past ten

years). This subsection presents the results from the first question and can be

interpreted as indicating how frequent specific motives are for mobility. Career

progression is overall perceived as the most frequent motive for mobility; this is in line

with the results of the MORE3 EU HE survey and the results of the GlobSci survey

(2012108) which indicate that opportunity to improve the future research career prospects

is a frequent factor influencing emigration. It is also in line with the MORE2 evidence that

108 C. Franzoni, G. Scellato, P. Stephan. Foreign Born Scientists: Mobility Patterns for Sixteen countries. Nature

Biotechnology, 30(12): 1250-1253.

3.3

5.0

5.8

15.8

56.7

13.3

3.3

5.2

8.5

18.3

54.2

10.5

9.5

7.9

6.3

20.6

49.2

6.3

10.6

14.9

19.1

12.8

40.4

2.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Anglo Saxon Non-EU OECD BRICS Other





October 2017 166

an attractive career path (a tenure-track position) is the most important factor for job

choice among early stage researchers.109

The results indicate that the most frequent motives for EU researchers to move outside

the EU are the availability of a suitable position (86%) and career progression (83%).

The most frequent motives for non-EU researchers to move to the EU are working with

leading scientists (95%) and career progression (83%).

Target groups: Both pension plan and social security and other benefits are perceived

as least frequent factors in the researchers’ decision to move outside the EU (TG1) and

to the EU (TG2). Job security is also only rarely perceived as very important in the

decision of non-EU researchers for their move towards the EU (34%)

For researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3), their most frequent

motive to move to the “third country” was availability of suitable positions (98%); career

progression (89%); access to research and facilities (84%); availability of research

funding (83%) and research autonomy (83%). Factors such as pension plan (58%),

social security and other benefits (69%) and job security (83%) (which are perceived as

less important by TG1 and TG2 researchers) are indicated less frequently as being more

important for TG3 researchers.

Figure 96: Frequency of motives to move

109 Janger, J., Nowotny, K. “Job choice in academia“. Research Policy 45, Nr. 8 (Oktober 2016): 1672–83.

Access to research facilities and equipmentAvailability of resarch funding

Availability of suitable positions

Balance between teaching and research time

Career progression

Culture and/or language

International networking

Job securityPension plan

Personal/family reasons


Remuneration

Research autonomy


Working with leading scientists

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100



TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries


October 2017 167

Motives

TG1: European working abroad

TG2:

Non-Europeans mobile to Europe

TG3:

Non-Europeans mobile, but not to

Europe Motives to work outside Europe

Motives to work in Europe in the past

Motives to work outside Europe

N=461 N=263 N=53

Access to research

facilities and equipment 66.8% 78.3% 83.7%


74.1% 78.9% 82.6%

Availability of suitable positions

85.9% 69.2% 98%

Balance between teaching and research

time

53.2% 63.1% 71.7%

Career progression 82.5% 82.7% 89.4%

Culture and/or language 62.2% 76.9% 71.1%

International networking 71.8% 95.7% 77.1%

Job security 50.7% 33.9% 83.3%

Pension plan 31.2% 26.7% 57.1%

Personal/family reasons 54.5% 54.3% 68.9%


58.2% 71.1% 77.8%

Remuneration 58.5% 47.2% 75.6%

Research autonomy 69.8% 82.6% 83%


36% 35.3% 69%

Working with leading

scientists 68.7% 95.2% 61.9%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 48 “Were the following factors important in your decision to move/work

outside Europe?”; question 58 “Were the following factors important in your decision to move/work in Europe in the past”?; question 74 “Were the following factors important in your decision to move to a third country”

- Green coloured cells indicate the items with the higher shares. - Red coloured cells indicate the items that have the lowest shares.

Country of current employment: An overview of the motives for EU researchers to

move/work outside the EU by country of current employment is provided in Table 36. The

most frequent motives of EU researchers to move to Anglo-Saxon countries, non-EU

OECD countries, BRICS countries and other countries are the availability of research

funding (86%) and career progression (84%). Additional motives for moving to the US

are working with leading scientists (89%); availability of research funding (87%);

availability of research facilities and equipment (84%) and international networking

(82%). The US stands out with respect to factors influencing scientific knowledge

production. Researchers move there to boost their career. It will be interesting to

compare this to the effects of working in the US (section 8.3.3.). Interestingly,

remuneration is not a main motive, although the US is said to provide very competitive

salaries. This is in line with MORE2 evidence that researchers are willing to trade off

salary against better conditions for research110.

110 Janger, J., Nowotny, K. “Job choice in academia“. Research Policy 45, Nr. 8 (October 2016): 1672–83.


October 2017 168

Table 36: Motives for moving/working outside the EU (TG1), by country

Motives Anglo Saxon

US Non-EU OECD

BRICS Other

N=288 N=91 N=350 N=40 N=27

Availability of suitable positions 86.3% 88.5% 86.2% 85.7% 81%

Career progression 83.5% 91.1% 81.6% 84.8% 91.3%

Availability of research funding 76% 87.2% 74.7% 74.3% 65%

International networking 71.9% 81.8% 71.5% 73.5% 73.9%

Research autonomy 72% 74.7% 69.1% 78.4% 65.2%

Working with leading scientists 73.8% 88.8% 72.3% 47.1% 47.6%


67.8% 83.7% 68.7% 63.9% 40%

Culture and/or language 60.1% 58.8% 62.1% 69.7% 52.2%

Remuneration 57.6% 56.6% 58.1% 60% 63.2%

Quality of training and education 63.3% 78.6% 60.6% 40.6% 50%

Personal/family reasons 50% 36.8% 53.1% 54.5% 73.9%

Balance between teaching and research time

53.4% 43.3% 52.5% 57.6% 55.6%

Job security 52% 50% 49.8% 60.6% 47.4%

Social security and other benefits 35.9% 32.1% 36.8% 31.3% 31.6%

Pension plan 32.1% 31.9% 32% 29% 22.2%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 48 “Where the following factors important in your decision to move/work

outside Europe?” - (n = 417) - Green coloured cells indicate the items with the higher shares. - Red coloured cells indicate the items that have the lowest shares.

Country of citizenship: An overview of the motives to move/work in the EU by

country/region of citizenship is provided in Table 37. For researchers from each country

group, their most frequent motives to move to the EU are international networking and

working with leading scientists. For researchers from BRICS and other countries the

access to research facilities and equipment (resp. 89% and 84%) is a frequently

indicated motive. Career progression is a frequently indicated motive for researchers

from non-EU OECD and other countries (resp. 82% and 92%). This picture is

encouraging, as it means that non-EU researchers do come to the EU to improve their

research output, as they are motivated by factors related to scientific knowledge

production, in addition to driving factors such as job and social security which are more

traditional EU advantages (see MORE3 EU HE Survey). An exception are researchers from

other emerging or developing countries (group “Other” in the table below).


October 2017 169

Table 37: Motives for moving/working in the EU (TG2), by country of citizenship

Anglo- Saxon

Non-EU OECD

BRICS Other

(n = 127) (n = 164) (n = 59) (n = 40)

International networking 95.2% 95% 96.6% 97.4%

Working with leading scientists 91.6% 94.2% 98.3% 94.9%

Career progression 76.6% 81.7% 79.2% 91.7%

Research autonomy 79.3% 82.5% 81.5% 84.6%

Availability of research funding 71.2% 76.2% 83% 83.8%

Access to research facilities and equipment 68.8% 73.1% 88.7% 83.8%

Culture and/or language 73.5% 77.3% 77.4% 74.4%

Quality of training and education 57.8% 62.8% 78.6% 89.7%

Availability of suitable positions 74.3% 74.4% 53.1% 71.9%

Balance between teaching and research time 60% 66.1% 58.8% 58.1%

Personal/family reasons 61.7% 57.5% 50% 46.7%

Remuneration 44.6% 46.7% 41.9% 55.9%

Social security and other benefits 27.7% 31.9% 37.5% 45.2%

Job security 25.6% 32.4% 26.3% 50%

Pension plan 23.8% 25% 21.6% 40.7%

Political 9.2% 19.1% 25% 38.7%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 58 “Where the following factors important in your decision to move/work in

Europe?”

- (n =263) - Green coloured cells indicate the items with the higher shares. - Red coloured cells indicate the items that have the lowest shares.

8.3.1.3. Motives for > 3 months mobility: main motives per move

Next to the question to indicate all motives for mobility towards the EU and outside the

EU, the MORE3 Global survey also contained a question for researchers to indicate the

main motive for each of the international > 3 months moves, as outlined above, to single

out one main motive. This forces respondents to identify the deciding factor for their

mobility experience.

The top 3 of motives for > 3 months mobility constitutes working with leading scientists

(28%), career progression (12%) and international networking (11%). The three least

common motives are job security (1%), remuneration (1%) and balance between

teaching and research time (1%). No large differences are observed between EU moves

and non-EU moves. Working with leading scientists and access to research facilities and

equipment are slightly more important for EU moves than for non-EU moves (approx. 4

percentage points difference). Again, this is consistent with earlier evidence that people

move because of career reasons, because they want to improve their conditions for

research (for knowledge production), and much less for non-research related issues such

as remuneration or quality of life111.

111 C. Franzoni, G. Scellato and P. Stephan. Foreign-born scientists: mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature

biotechnology, 30(12): 1250-1253, 2012); Janger, J., Nowotny, K. „Job choice in academia“. Research Policy 45, Nr. 8 (October 2016): 1672–83.


October 2017 170

Table 38: Importance of motives for > 3 month international mobility, main motive

per move

Total EU-moves

Non-EU moves

(n = 1,080) (n = 556) (n = 524)

Working with leading scientists 27.7% 29.5% 25.8%



Research autonomy 7.9% 7.6% 8.2%

Availability of a suitable position 7.6% 6.8% 8.4%

Availability of research funding 7.5% 7.9% 7.1%

Access to research facilities and equipment 6.3% 8.3% 4.1%

Quality of training and education 4.5% 5.4% 3.6%

Personal/family reason 4.4% 3.4% 5.5%

Culture and/or language 2.0% 1.8% 2.3%

Balance between teaching and research time 1.3% 0.5% 2.1%


Job security 0.7% 0.5% 1%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Distribution of moves by target groups (n = 1,080) - Based on question 45 “What was your main motive to move to these countries”. - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


8.3.1.4. Motives for > 3 months employer mobility: main motives per move

‘Employer mobility’ refers to moves that include a change of employer. Reasons for this

type of change can be expected to be different from motives to move only temporarily

(without employer change). Large differences can be observed for career progression and

the availability of suitable positions, which are more important when engaging in a move

with employer change (resp. 14 and 16 percentage points difference). This is in line with

existing literature which indicates that researcher scientists use job – employer - mobility

to improve their career prospects (either at home or abroad) (Ackers, 2005)112. Working

with leading scientists and international networking are more important motives for

engaging in a move without employer change (22 percentage point difference).

In line with literature (e.g. Ackers, 2005), the results of the MORE3 Global survey do not

indicate employer mobility (in research) to achieve greater economic rewards: The

survey results indicate that remuneration is even less the main motive for a particular

move with employer change than for a move without employer change.

112 Ackers, L. (2005). Moving people and knowledge: scientific mobility in the European Unkion. Internatnioal

migration, vol 45 (5), pp 99.-131.


October 2017 171


per move

Share of moves for which the motive was indicated as the main one

Total

No employer change

Employer change

(n = 1,080) (n = 689 ) (n = 391 )







Research autonomy 6.3% 9% 5.9%


Access to research facilities and equipment 4.4% 8.7% 2%

Culture and/or language 2.0% 2% 2%

Job security 1.3% 0.3% 1.5%



Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Distribution of moves by target groups (n = 1,080)

- Based on question 45 “What was your main motive to move to these countries” - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another


Destination: Distinguishing between EU and non-EU moves with employer change does

not reveal a lot of differences (Table 40). Quality of training and education (5.4

percentage points) and international networking (4.6 percentage points) are slightly

more frequently indicated as motives for EU moves than for non-EU moves, while

research autonomy is slightly more frequently indicated as important for non-EU moves

versus EU moves (4.6 percentage points).


per move for moves with employer change

Share of moves for which the motive was indicated as the main one

Total EU moves

Non-EU moves

(n = 391) (n = 171 ) (n = 220 )







Research autonomy 5.9% 3.5% 7.7%


Access to research facilities and equipment 2% 3.5% 0.9%

Culture and/or language 2% 1.2% 2.7%

Job security 1.5% 0.6% 2.3%


Remuneration 0.5% 0 0.9%


Notes: - Distribution of moves by target groups (n = 391) - Based on question 45 “Did you change employer in this step?” and “What was your main

motive to move to these countries?” - With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more in the last ten years to another



October 2017 172

8.3.2. Barriers for mobility

Both EU and non-EU researchers working in non-EU countries were questioned in the

MORE3 Global survey about their willingness to return or to come to Europe and the

factors that were perceived as hindering this move. The survey included questions on the

barriers that have been experienced by those having come to Europe before or that are

actively trying to move to Europe, as well as the barriers that are expected to be difficult

to overcome for those that have never worked in the EU before (and are not currently

trying).

8.3.2.1. Experienced barriers for mobility

63% of EU researchers working abroad claim not to be interested in moving back to

Europe in the next 12 months. The rest of the researchers are divided between those

that are considering a return to Europe (18%) and those that are undecided (19%).

Among those that are considering a return to Europe (TG1), the majority state that they

have taken concrete steps to do so (77%). The main barriers that this group of

researchers has found are job-related (Figure 97): 75% declare that they have

experienced difficulties finding a suitable job position, 70% obtaining funding for

research, and 68% obtaining funding for mobility.

Figure 97: Experienced difficulties in the efforts to come back to Europe for European researchers living abroad (TG1)

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 55 “Have you faced any of the following difficulties in your efforts to move

back to Europe?” - (n = 417)

74.6

70.0

68.0

55.2

41.0

36.8

36.6

35.9

29.8

28.6

24.1

10.2

7.9

7.0

3.5

3.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Finding a suitable position

Obtaining funding for research

Obtaining funding for mobility

Maintaining level of remuneration

Transferring pension

Logistical problems

Transferring research funding to another country

Transferring social security entitlements

Other personal/family reason

Loss of contact with professional network

Access to research facilities and equipment for research


Culture

Language barrier for teaching

Obtaining a visa or work permit

Language barrier for contact/collaboration with colleagues


October 2017 173

Among the non-EU researchers that have worked in the EU before (TG2), the main

difficulties experienced in that move to the EU seem to be different (Figure 98. For these

researchers, the most frequent barriers are logistical problems (39%), transferring social

security entitlements (36%) and transferring the pension (34%). Note that this group

was much more engaged in exchange mobility and in international mobility without an

employer change.

Figure 98: Experienced difficulties in the efforts to come back to Europe for non-European researchers having worked in Europe in the past (TG2)


Notes: - Based on question 62 “Have you faced any of the following difficulties in your move to Europe? - (n = 263)

8.3.2.2. Expected hindering factors for mobility

The survey also included questions on the extent to which different elements were

expected to be problematic for those not having moved to the EU or not having

considered it at all.

Target groups: Figure 99 and Table 41 show the share of researchers who expect that

each of the factors might be difficult to deal with in a possible move to the EU. This

question is answered by two target groups: non-EU researchers having worked abroad

but never in the EU (TG3); and non-EU researchers that have never been mobile (TG4).

The most frequently cited hindering factors among the former is the difficulty to obtain

funding for research (80%), to transfer social security entitlements (78 %) and pensions

(78%), and to find a suitable position (77%). Obtaining funding for research (82%) and

for mobility (80%) are the most frequently mentioned barriers by the researchers that

have never been mobile, but concerns about the difficulties of transferring social security

entitlements (77%) and pensions (75%) are also widespread.

39.0

35.7

34.1

29.4

29.2

27.4

26.5

23.9

22.1

21.8

21.6

16.5

14.6

12.4

11.5

10.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Logistical problems












Culture





October 2017 174

Figure 99: Expected difficulties to come to Europe for non-EU researchers who have

never worked in Europe before

Table 41: Expected difficulties to come to Europe for non-EU researchers who have never worked in Europe before

TG3: Non-EU researchers

who have worked abroad but not in the EU

TG4: Non-EU researchers

who have never worked abroad

n=178 n=869

Obtaining funding for research 80.3% 81.8%

Transferring pension 78.3% 75.1%


78.1% 77.1%

Finding a suitable position 77.4% 78.8%

Obtaining funding for mobility 73.7% 79.9%


71.6% 74.5%


58.1% 54.5%

Other personal/family reason 55% 54.7%

Logistical problems 45.2% 56.0%

Obtaining a visa or work permit 44.2% 41.1%

Language barrier for teaching 42.9% 44.9%


27.9% 34.2%


24% 31.4%

Access to research facilities

and equipment for research 18.2% 17.9%

Culture 11.3% 14.7%

Quality of training and

education 8.4% 8%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 72 “Do you think it would be easy or difficult to deal with the following

factors if you would like to work in Europe in the future?” - (n = 178; n = 869)

Loss of contact with professional networkAccess to research facilities and equipment for research






Maintaining level of remunerationTransferring social security entitlements




Culture


Logistical problems


20

40

60

80

100

Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in an EU country

Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad


October 2017 175

8.3.2.3. Barriers for mobility to third countries

Mobile researchers working in a set of non-European countries (mainly larger S&T

countries), different from their own, received special attention in the MORE3 Global

survey. More specifically, a series of items were specifically designed to collect

information about the main barriers experienced by mobile researchers when moving to

18 countries.113 Although the list of countries is very heterogeneous it is interesting to

note that most of the researchers working in these countries declare that they are willing

to stay or that they would have liked to stay in the country (89%).

Figure 100 illustrates the main barriers experienced by these researchers in their move

to the selected countries. Except for the quality of training and education (44%), the

other three most frequently mentioned barriers coincide with the most frequently found

barriers for researchers moving or having moved to Europe. These barriers are: the

difficulties to obtain funding for research (46%) and to transfer social security

entitlements (41%) and pensions (41%). The number of responses to the individual

countries is too low to perform a more detailed cross-country comparison.

Figure 100: Experienced barriers to move to selected countries

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 77 “Have you faced any of the following difficulties in your move to?”

- (n = 53)

113 Brazil, Singapore, Turkey, Canada, Malaysia, Israel, China, Indonesia, India, Thailand, Japan, United States,

Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Chili, Mexico, and South Africa.

45.7

44.4

41.2

40.6

40.0

35.6

35.4

31.9

29.5

29.2

27.1

25.0

23.3

22.9

16.7

12.5

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%











Logistical problems



Culture




October 2017 176

8.3.3. Effects of mobility

The next subsection shows effects of mobility, or rather stays abroad, for the group of EU

researchers currently working outside Europe (TG1), the group of non-EU researchers

who worked in the EU in the past (TG2) and the group of non-EU researchers who

worked in a different country than their current country of employment, but not in the EU

(TG3).

Effects were asked along a variety of categories, including scientific output (quality and

quantity of publications); co-authored publications; more input-related items such as

ability to obtain research funding; gaining advanced research skills; interdisciplinary

collaboration; network effects in terms of both increased contacts and recognition in the

international research community; job options in- and outside academia; overall career

progression; progression with respect to salary and quality of life.

8.3.3.1. EU researchers abroad (TG1)

Overall, for EU researchers abroad (TG1), a majority has experienced positive effects in

all of these categories, with the most negative effect being quality of life for 19% of

respondents (Figure 101). Consistent with motivations for mobility (see section 8.3.1.2),

the biggest effects are observed in terms of gaining an international network (77%) and

recognition in the research community (67%) with overall career progression in between

(71%). The effects of the stay abroad on scientific output or on job options was less

marked, but still positive.

Figure 101: Effects of stay abroad for EU researchers


- Only EU researchers who work outside the EU (TG1). - Based on question 51: “Please indicate below how your stay outside Europe has influenced the

following factors” - (n= 315-406)

14.9 31.1 38.4 10.2 5.4

19.3 33.2 38.3 6.7 2.4

22.7 32.6 31.5 9.6 3.6

19.5 36.5 29.3 10.3 4.4

22.7 34.2 29.3 10.5 3.3

25.1 32.8 23.3 12.9 6.0

19.3 39.6 29.6 9.2 2.4

28.3 35.8 21.5 12.3 2.3

24.4 41.4 28.4 4.71.0

25.4 41.7 24.1 8.0 0.8

24.9 42.2 22.4 8.1 2.3

25.2 45.8 20.7 5.8 2.5

32.0 45.1 14.3 7.9 0.7

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Job options outside academia

Quality of output

Job options in academia

Quantity of output

Competitive Funding

Quality of life

Number of co-authored publications

Progression in salary

Research skills

Collaboration with other FOS

Recognition

Career progression

International Network

Strongly increased Increased

Remained unchanged Decreased

Strongly decreased


October 2017 177

Country of current employment: Grouped by current country of employment (Table

42), it is striking that across all categories, with the exception of quality of life, EU

researchers who work in the US report much more increased effects than their

counterparts in other countries. This indicates that the EU researchers in the US work in

excellent research institutions. Differences with the effects reported from staying in other

countries than the US are highest for obtaining competitive research funding, job options

in and outside academia, quality of scientific output and recognition in the research

community. This means that researchers who have been to or are in the US report that

their stay in the US has led to higher research funding, better job options, higher

scientific output and more recognition in the research community. Interestingly, for

quality of life, the effects are unchanged in the US but more positive in other countries

where EU researchers work. The effects of staying abroad hence confirm the results of

the preceding direct comparison between research systems (section 8.2), where the US

stood out by comparison with the EU, and confirms the research-related motives of

moving to the US (section 8.3.1).

Table 42: Effects of stay abroad for EU researchers, grouped by country of

employment

Anglo Saxon

USA Non-EU OECD

BRICS

Job options in academia 0.72 1.01 0.67 0.39

Career progression 0.97 1.16 0.91 0.60

Collaboration with other FOS 0.95 1.14 0.87 0.58

Competitive Funding 0.70 1.02 0.66 0.49

Number of co-authored publications 0.76 0.89 0.70 0.23

International Network 1.09 1.33 1.06 0.63

Job options outside academia 0.53 0.93 0.40 0.42

Quality of life 0.75 0.05 0.67 0.18

Quality of output 0.73 1.02 0.68 0.14

Quantity of output 0.69 0.79 0.60 0.31

Recognition 0.96 1.29 0.87 0.42

Research skills 0.96 1.20 0.91 0.36

Progression in salary 0.89 0.97 0.86 -0.03


- Only EU researchers who work outside the EU (TG1), grouped by their current country of employment.

- With the average calculated by assigning values to each category: 2 = strongly increased; 1 = increased; 0 = unchanged; -1 = decreased; -2 = strongly decreased.

- Based on question 51: “Please indicate below how your stay outside Europe has influenced the following factors”

- (n= 315-406)

8.3.3.2. Non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past (TG2)

The second group of researchers is comprised of non-EU researchers who worked in the

EU in the past (TG2). They also report mostly positive effects from their stay abroad,

with overall fewer respondents indicating negative effects than with the group of EU

researchers, but also with more effects where a majority of respondents perceived no

change (job options and salary progression; Figure 102). Most strongly increased

categories are similar to the group of EU researchers: network effects (international

contacts and recognition in the research community), research skills and collaboration

with other sub(fields) of research. By contrast, overall career progression has seen a

more modest boost in comparison with the group of EU researchers. The categories that

received overall the smallest positive boost by the stay abroad are almost identical to the

group of EU researchers (with the exception of the ones who stayed in the US), such as

job options, research funding and the quality of scientific output.


October 2017 178

Figure 102: Effects of stay in the EU for non-EU researchers

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU. - Based on question 61: “Please indicate below how your stay in Europe has influenced the

following factors.” - (n= 195-259)

Country of current employment: Table 43 again differentiates respondents by their

current country of employment. Overall, effects of a stay in Europe are mostly more

positive for researchers who now work in emerging countries (BRICS or other countries).

In terms of attractiveness of the EU, this can again be interpreted in the sense that

researchers currently working in a BRICs country benefit more from a stay in the EU than

those from advanced countries. Although it would also make sense to investigate effects

by EU country of stay, there are too few observations for Northern and Eastern European

countries and no significant differences between the non-EU researchers who stayed in a

Southern or Western European country.

10.2 25.8 59.1 4.00.9

9.2 27.2 57.4 5.11.0

17.0 29.8 50.5 2.30.5

14.2 35.1 48.5 1.30.8

18.1 34.0 39.9 5.0 2.9

18.6 47.4 32.8 0.40.8

14.9 52.1 29.3 2.51.2

15.8 53.8 27.9 2.00.4

17.5 54.2 23.5 4.00.8

23.4 49.6 24.2 2.00.8

24.1 52.1 23.0 0.8

20.3 57.0 20.7 1.60.4

40.2 52.9 6.20.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%




Research Funding

Quality of life

Quality of output


Career progression

Quantity of output


Research skills

Recognition




Strongly decreased


October 2017 179

Table 43: Effects of stay abroad for non-EU researchers, grouped by current country

of employment

Anglo

Saxon

Non-EU

OECD BRICS Other







Quality of life 0.37 0.52 0.75 0.68



Recognition 0.92 0.90 1.00 1.13

Research Funding 0.45 0.50 0.73 0.91


Progression in salary 0.16 0.27 0.48 0.81


- Only non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, grouped by their current country of employment.

- Based on question 61: “Please indicate below how your stay in Europe has influenced the following factors.”

- (n= 195-259)

8.3.3.3. Non-EU researchers who were mobile in a non-EU country (TG3)

Finally, we look at the group of non-EU researchers who were mobile for more than three

months in a non-EU country (TG3). This is a smaller group of 53 respondents, so we

present only Figure 103 with the total. Similar to other researcher groups and consistent

with both motives of researchers (section 8.3.1) and the MORE3 EU HE survey, the

biggest effects are observed for the network of international contacts and collaboration

with other researchers, but also for overall career progression and quality of life. Job

options and quantity or quality of output are again at the bottom of the effects most

strongly affected by the stay abroad. While on average a majority of respondents reports

increased effects, for this group of non-EU researchers there is a higher share of

respondents reporting reduced effects, such as with respect to salary progression (28%

report that the stay abroad has negatively influenced salary progression).


October 2017 180

Figure 103: Effects of long-term stay in a non-EU country for non-EU researchers

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only non-EU researchers who have been long-term mobile to a non-EU country. - Based on question 76: “Please indicate below how your stay in … has influenced the following

factors.”

- (n= 47-52)

Overall, a stay abroad, or mobility, leads to positive effects in various domains, most

strongly so for network effects, as would be expected. Confirming the analysis from a

direct comparison of research systems in section 8.2, EU researchers who work in the US

report higher effects across the board, with the exception of quality of life. By contrast, a

stay in Europe affects more positively researchers currently working in less advanced

countries.

8.4. Interest to work in Europe

8.4.1. European researchers (TG1): return mobility

Of the EU researchers who are currently working outside the EU, 20% indicated that they

are interested to move back to the EU in the coming 12 months, and 18% indicated that

they do not know.

Career stage: Interest in moving back to the EU is highest amongst R1 (28%) and R2

(36%) as compared to R3 (11%) and R4 (10%) researchers. This is in line with other

studies, which show that when researchers become established at an institution, they are

12.5 35.4 39.6 10.4 2.1

17.1 34.1 39.0 7.3 2.4

34.0 22.0 38.0 6.0

28.6 28.6 24.5 14.3 4.1

24.4 35.6 22.2 11.1 6.7

10.0 52.0 10.0 18.0 10.0

17.6 45.1 21.6 9.8 5.9

31.4 31.4 31.4 5.9

23.4 40.4 25.5 10.6

16.0 52.0 18.0 14.0

28.6 42.9 14.3 10.2 4.1

34.0 44.0 16.0 4.02.0

40.4 38.5 15.4 3.81.9

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Quality of output

Quantity of output

Research Funding


Recognition

Research skills


Career progression

Quality of life





Strongly decreased


October 2017 181

less likely to move.114 The willingness to move for career reasons is highest for early

stage researchers. This is also important for EU or national policies targeting EU

researchers abroad aiming at return mobility (see section 8.5).

Of the 20% of researchers who indicated that they are considering moving back to

Europe in the coming 12 months, 79% (or 15 percentage points) have also undertaken

concrete steps in order to return to Europe.

Country of current employment: Between 20% and 30% of the EU researchers

currently located in United States, Japan and Canada indicated that they are considering

moving back to the EU in the next 12 months (only countries with more than 30

observations are considered in the analysis).

Figure 104: Return mobility of EU researchers who currently work abroad, by country

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 53 “Are you considering moving back to Europe in the coming 12 months”

and question 22 “What is your country of current employment”.

- (n = 325).

Country of citizenship: When comparing UK, German, French and Italian researchers

currently working outside the EU, we observe that UK researchers are the least inclined

to return to the EU in the coming 12 months (7%) compared to Germany (26%), France

(25%) and Italy (22%).

114 E.g. Laudel, G., "Migration currents among the scientific elite", Minerva, 2005, 43(4), pp. 377–395.

2.3

79.5

18.2

17.0

70.2

12.8

20.8

64.6

14.6

27.1

56.3

16.7

28.6

52.7

18.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

New

Zea

land

Austra

lia

Can

ada

Japa

n

Unite

d Sta

tes

Yes No Do not know


October 2017 182

Contract type: The share of EU researchers currently working outside the EU who are

considering to move back to the EU in the coming 12 months is, not surprisingly, higher

amongst the researchers with a fixed-term contract (28%) than the ones with a

permanent/open contract (10%).

Motives for mobility: 20% of the EU researchers currently working outside the EU who

felt forced to move indicated that they are considering to move back to the EU in the

coming 12 months. The interest to return to the EU is lower amongst researchers who

chose to move to improve their working conditions (8%) and higher for those who chose

to move because international mobility – though not required – will be appreciated in

their career and working conditions (34%) and for the opportunities international mobility

offers in terms of networking and knowledge exchange (27%).

8.4.2. Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past

(TG2): interest to work in Europe

Of the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past, 77% would have liked

to stay in Europe as a researcher115.

92% of the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past are interested in

working in the EU in the future.116 The comparison with the abovementioned share of EU

researchers interested in coming back to the EU is, however, limited by the fact that the

wording of the question was not the same: whereas Europeans were asked about a

specific time period (“in the next 12 months”), the question for non-EU researchers only

included a reference to the “future”, hence using a more generic term.

96% would also recommend working in the EU as a researcher to other colleagues117.

Career stage: Interest in working in the EU in the future is highest amongst first-stage

researchers (R1) and lowest amongst leading researchers (R4), confirming the picture of

a higher willingness to be mobile during early career stages.

Contract type: The share of non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past

and who are interested to work in the EU is slightly higher amongst the researchers with

a fixed-term contract (94%) than the ones with a permanent/open contract (91%).

Motives for mobility: 97% of the non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past

and who felt forced to move to the EU, indicated that they would be interested to work as

a researchers in the EU in the future. This share is similar for researchers who indicated

that they chose to move because international mobility will be appreciated in their career

and working conditions. The interest to work in the EU is lower amongst researchers who

indicated that they chose to move to the EU for opportunities international mobility offers

in terms of networking and knowledge exchange (90%).

8.4.3. Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU

(TG3): interest to work in Europe

Of the non-EU researchers with no working experience in the EU, 85% would be

interested in working in Europe in the future118. Among the latter, four out of ten

researchers (42%) have also recently investigated the possibility of working as a

researcher in Europe119.

115 Based on question 63 “Would you have liked to stay in Europe in as a researcher?” 116 Based on question 66 “Would you be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future?” 117 Based on question 67 “Would you recommend working as a researcher in Europe to other colleagues?” 118 Based on question 70 “Would you be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future?” 119 Based on question 71 “Have you recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe?”


October 2017 183

8.4.4. Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (TG4):

interest to work in Europe

83% of the researchers that had been mobile over 10 years ago indicated that they

would be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future120. In addition, 37%

of the researchers who indicated that they would be interested in doing so have also

recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe121.

Despite their lack of past mobility experiences, 89% of the non-mobile researchers

indicated that they would be interested to work as a researcher in Europe in the future122.

In addition, 37% of the researchers who indicated this interest have also recently

investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe123. Overall, this points in

principle to high levels of interest in the EU and to a perception of an attractive EU

research system. Section 8.2 analyses more in detail how researchers working in

different non-EU countries perceive the EU in direct comparison.

Career stage: The interest to work in the EU as a researchers in the future amongst

non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (TG4) is highest amongst R1 and R2

researchers (93-94%) and lowest amongst R4 researchers (80%). R1 and R2 researchers

also more frequently investigated the possibilities of working as a researcher in the EU

(45% and 36%) compared to R4 researchers (24%).

8.5. Improving the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers: policies

Improving the attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers hinges on many

factors, as outlined in sections 8.1-8.3 and also in the report on the MORE3 EU HE

survey. The analyses in the previous sections have not only shown us the general picture

of how attractive different areas are as research areas, but also which factors are

decisive in determining this attractiveness, and which are enablers rather than drivers.

Drivers are those crucial overall attractive conditions for research, or scientific knowledge

production, which make researchers choose the EU as a location for their research

because it will foster their career and advance their research agenda. Among these are

attractive career paths (a tenure track model) and career perspectives and working with

leading scientists. Important enabling framework conditions – or barriers to coming to

the EU - are immigration options (rules relating to non-EU nationals working in the EU),

the general availability of jobs in the ERA as well as getting funding for research. Many

policies at the EU, national and regional level address these factors that are potentially

relevant for attractiveness. In this section, we focus more specifically on two EU-level

policy instruments, Euraxess and EU research funding instruments, but first an overview

is provided of the main findings from the previous sections.

8.5.1. The attractiveness of the EU as a destination for researchers

Euraxess and EU funding instruments address, among other factors, two main issues for

(mobile) researchers: the availability of job positions and funding for research or

mobility. How do these two issues matter for mobility decisions of the researchers in our

sample? How do they influence the attractiveness of the EU? The previous sections have

120 Based on question 70 “Would you be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future?” 121 Based on question 71 “Have you recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe?” 122 Based on question 70 “Would you be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future?” 123 Based on question 71 “Have you recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe?”


October 2017 184

already noted that they are very relevant as barriers to mobility and also important as

motives for mobility. In the following, we set out with a concise comparison of which role

funding and the availability of positions play for the mobility decisions across our four

groups of researchers as a gauge of the potential lever Euraxess and funding

programmes have on improving the attractiveness of ERA; this overview synthesises the

insights from the previous sections.

Table 44 synthesises the various questions in the survey which the different researcher

groups were asked on the role of the availability of positions and of (research and

mobility) funding:

as a main motive to move (section 1 in the table below);

as an important factor in outward mobility decisions (section 2);

as a barrier to mobility (back to Europe for the EU researchers, to the EU for the

non-EU researchers) (section 3) and

as a factor for leaving the EU (the non-EU researchers who were mobile to the EU)

(section 4).

The evidence from the MORE3 Global survey clearly shows that the availability of

research funding and suitable positions are enablers, but not drivers of mobility, in the

sense that if they do not exist, people interested in international mobility will struggle to

become mobile; their main motivation to become mobile is however only in a minority of

cases (12% for positions, 10% for funding; see section 1 of the table below) related to

funding and the availability of positions. The main motivation across all groups is, rather,

related to working with leading scientists, career progression as well as international

networking (section 2in the table below) (see also section 8.3.1.4 on main motives of

mobility).

The availability of funding and positions are thus major enablers as stated, as many

researchers cite them as being among the most important factors for or barriers to

mobility (section 3 Table 44). The exception to this pattern are non-EU researchers who

were mobile to the EU (TG2) or other countries (TG3) (questions 62 and 77 in section 4)

who were asked about their actual mobility. The low share of researchers that considers

this a barrier in their mobility indicates that they had secured a position or funding before

they came to the EU or the other countries, as is natural (they would not have moved

without having secured a position or the necessary funding beforehand). For EU

researchers thinking about moving back to the EU, finding a suitable position is obviously

a major issue (questions 55 and 56; note that question 56 concerns only 15 researchers

for the two answering options funding). Mobility of TG2 researchers was also more

related to exchange mobility and international mobility without employer change, where

issues of funding and availability of positions play a much less important role. Funding

and the availability of a position are hence conditions for mobility, particularly in the case

of mobility involving a change of employer, but not drivers.


October 2017 185

Table 44: Role played by the availability of positions and funding for mobility

decision across the different researcher groups

Availability of suitable position as a… Availability of research funding as a…

1 …main motive for mobility

(Question 45) 11.6%

…main motive for mobility

(Question 45) 9.9%

2

…important decision factor for outward mobility


TG1 (Question 48) 85.9%




TG3 (Question 74) 98.0% TG3 (Question 74) 82.6%

3

…barrier to future mobility


TG1 Moving back to Europe (Question 55)

74.6%

TG1 Moving back to Europe (Question 55 - Research funding)

70.0%

TG1 Moving back to Europe (Question 55 - Mobility funding)

68.0%


100.0%


93.3%

TG3 & TG4 Moving to Europe (Question 72)

57.2%

TG3 & TG4 Moving to Europe (Question 72 - Research funding)

55.2%

TG3 & TG4 Moving to Europe (Question 72 - Mobility funding)

53.5%

4

…barrier to past/actual mobility


TG2 Moving to Europe (Question 62)

23.9%

TG2 Moving to Europe (Question 62 - Research funding)

27.4%

TG2 Moving to Europe (Question 62 - Mobility funding)

26.5%

TG3 Moving to a non-EU Country (Question 77)

25.0%

TG3 Moving to a non-EU Country (Question 77 - Research funding)

45.7%

TG3 Moving to a non-EU Country

(Question 77 - Mobility funding) 23.3%

5 …decision for leaving the EU


Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on questions indicated in table. - (n=15-1,023)

This implies that EU funding and Euraxess can provide an attractive context in terms of

enabling mobility to the EU – or preventing forced outward mobility of talents - if people

want to come to the EU in the first place. Section 8.2 also shows that the EU is generally

perceived to be worse in terms of funding and the availability of positions by EU

researchers working abroad in developed non-EU OECD countries, including particularly

the US. Non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, on the other hand,

perceive the EU to be better in terms of funding and positions. But the attractiveness of

the EU is determined by additional factors, particularly those related to the conditions for

scientific knowledge production mentioned above, such as working with leading scientists

and attractive career paths which provide stable time horizons for implementing long-

term research agendas.

In the next section we will examine in detail the answers to the questions in the MORE3

Global survey on Euraxess and on EU funding, also relating awareness of Euraxess and

knowledge of EU funding to the role that the availability of funding and positions plays for

mobility decisions as evidenced above.


October 2017 186

8.5.2. EU policies: Euraxess and (EU) funding

8.5.2.1. Awareness of Euraxess

Target groups: Figure 105 reports shares of researchers who know or don’t know

Euraxess Links, and among those who know Euraxess, whether they have created an

online account or not. It clearly reveals that knowledge of Euraxess is more widespread

among researchers with a connection to the EU, be it EU researchers abroad (TG1) or

non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU in the past (TG2). Awareness of

Euraxess reaches 29-40% of the researchers in these two groups. In the other two

groups (TG3 and TG4), where researchers are neither from the EU nor have worked in

the EU before, knowledge of Euraxess is much lower at around 14%. In total, Euraxess

awareness is higher among researchers working outside Europe (23%) than working

inside (see MORE3 EU HE survey, 16%), although the samples cannot readily be

compared. Nevertheless, Euraxess seems to be known equally well among researchers

working outside the EU as among researchers inside the EU.

Figure 105: Awareness of Euraxess across researcher groups


- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 81: “Do you know Euraxess Links?”

Country of current employment: Figure 106 shows that awareness of Euraxess Links

is higher in the US, in the BRICS countries and in other countries. This may be because

more EU or non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU are working there, but

also because in some countries awareness of Euraxess Links is higher, e.g. in China the

77.3

12.3

10.4

60.2

22.8

17.0

71.1

12.9

16.0

86.5

5.1

8.4

85.5

8.5

6.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No

Yes, I know EURAXESS Links, but I have not created an onl ine account in one of the EURAXESS communii ties

Yes, I know EURAXESS Links and I have created an online account in one of the EURAXESS communities


October 2017 187

awareness is 90% among the 30 respondents. This may be linked to the sampling

strategy, as Euraxess Links officers were also invited to advertise and distribute the

MORE3 Global survey. As it may be interesting for policy purposes, we provide the full list

of countries with Euraxess Links awareness in the annex (Table 62).

Figure 106: Awareness of Euraxess by country of employment of researchers

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Nots: - Based on question 81: “Do you know Euraxess Links?” - (n=1,727)

Figure 107 shows the mode by which researchers became aware of Euraxess Links, with

the options events, networking, social media, workshops and other available.

Target groups: In total, events and networking dominate over social media and

workshops, with the latter more prominent in the group of non-EU researchers who

worked in a different non-EU country (TG3) and social media in the group of researchers

who have never been mobile (TG4). Note that the number of respondents in TG3 is only

24.

Country of current employment: Grouped by country of employment, there are no

major differences between e.g. the BRICS countries or the non-EU OECD countries.

86.7

9.2

4.1

62.7

22.9

14.4

83.0

10.9

6.1

59.7

16.9

23.4

72.0

13.1

15.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


No

Yes, I know EURAXESS Links, but I have not created an onl ine account in one of the EURAXESS communii ties

Yes, I know EURAXESS Links and I have created an online account in one of the EURAXESS communities


October 2017 188

Figure 107: How researchers became aware of Euraxess Links


Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=392)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=166) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=76) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=24) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=126) - Based on question 82: “How did you get to know Euraxess Links?”

Among the researchers who did open a Euraxess online account, the most common

geographical regions in our sample are North America (27%), Japan, Brazil and ASEAN

(all similar at around 16%), as well as China and India (at about 12-13%).

39.336.5

24.5

19.1

14.0

44.0

32.5

18.7

12.015.1

27.6

44.7

27.6

21.1

13.2

41.7

50.0

20.8

33.3

12.5

39.7

34.131.0

24.6

13.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Events

Netw

orkin

g

Socia

l med

ia

Work

shops

Oth

er

Events

Netw

orkin

g

Socia

l med

ia

Work

shops

Oth

er

Events

Netw

orkin

g

Socia

l med

ia

Work

shops

Oth

er

Events

Netw

orkin

g

Socia

l med

ia

Work

shops

Oth

er

Events

Netw

orkin

g

Socia

l med

ia

Work

shops

Oth

er


October 2017 189

Figure 108: How researchers became aware of Euraxess Links, by target group and

geographic location

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=180) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=71)


- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=15) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=52) - Based on question 83: “In which Euraxess community have you created an online account?”

In terms of who actually used Euraxess Links, Table 45 indicates that very few

researchers (39) actually applied for a position through a vacancy on the Euraxess

website, at even much lower levels than reported for researchers working inside the EU

(16%, although the samples are difficult to compare). Less than one quarter (9

researchers in the total sample) actually managed to obtain a position through this

application.

16.7

16.1

11.7

12.8

16.1

26.7

7.0

5.6

12.7

4.2

29.6

40.8

19.0

21.4

14.3

11.9

9.5

23.8

26.7

33.3

13.3

6.7

6.7

13.3

25.0

21.2

7.7

26.9

5.8

13.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


ASEAN Brazil

China India

Japan North America (US and Canada)


October 2017 190

Table 45: Use of Euraxess Links for applying for a position in % of total (left-hand

panel), and in % of applications (right-hand panel)

Applied for a position:

(n = 1,727)

If you have applied:

(n = 39)

No Yes Obtained a position

TG1 96.9% 3.1% 7.7%

TG2 95.1% 4.9% 46.2%

TG3 97.2% 2.8% 20%

TG4 99.1% 0.9% 12.5%

Total 97.7% 2.3% 23.1% Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes:

- Based on question 84: “Have you ever applied for a position through a vacancy on the Euraxess portal?” and question 85: “Have you ever obtained a position through a vacancy advertised on the Euraxess portal?“

- (n=1,727/39)

Table 46 shows shares of researchers who know about Euraxess Links by the role played

by the availability of a position for funding (relating back to Table 44). If shares are

higher than in Figure 105, Euraxess is better known among researchers who consider the

availability of positions as important for outward or return mobility. We gather that the

majority EU researchers that do consider moving back to Europe (60% vs 58%124) and

that see the availability of a position as a barrier to mobility back to Europe (64% and

71%125) know about Euraxess Links. In general, awareness is much higher for those EU

researchers considering to move back126 at close to 60% than awareness among TG1

(40%). Awareness is also higher among TG2 researchers citing the availability of

positions as important for mobility (e.g., in Figure 105 only 19% of TG2 researchers are

aware of Euraxess, comparing with 32% in questions 58 and 62). This indicates that

Euraxess does properly address its potential target group.

However, awareness among non-EU researchers who have been mobile but not to the EU

(TG3) and who see the availability of positions as an important factor or barrier for

mobility is about equal as in total TG3 at approx. 15%; so that there may be potential to

increase the awareness for this group in particular. There could be a chicken and egg

problem here, in that if researchers are not so interested in the first place to move to

Europe for a research career, they will be less motivated to look for potential job

platforms such as Euraxess Links. Euraxess Links should hence be seen in combination

with efforts aimed at increasing the overall attractiveness of ERA in combination with

tools which reduce barriers to mobility.

124 Questions 53 and 54 in the MORE3 Global survey. 125 Questions 55 and 56 in the MORE3 Global survey. 126 Questions 53 and 54 in the MORE3 Global survey.


October 2017 191

Table 46: Awareness of Euraxess Links for researchers who see the availability of

positions as an important motive for, factor in or barrier to mobility vs. awareness among all respondents

Availability of suitable position as a…

Awareness of Euraxess among all

respondents (Question 81)

…main motive for mobility (Question 45) 26.8% 22.7%


TG 1 (Question 48) 42.5% 39.8%

TG 2 (Question 58) 32.4% 28.9%

TG 3 (Question 74) 14.6% 13.5%


TG 1 (Question 55) 63.8% 39.8%

TG 1 (Question 56) 70.6% 39.8%

TG 3 & TG 4 (Question 72) 12.6%


TG 2 (Question 62) 32.7% 28.9%

TG 3 (Question 77) 25.0% 13.5%

TG1: Considering moving back to Europe (Question 53) 60.2%

39.8%

TG1: Undertaken concrete steps in order to return to

Europe (Question 54)

57.6%

39.8%


Notes: - Based on question 81: “Do you know Euraxess Links?” and questions indicated in the table.

Note that the cross-section of question 81 and 56 is only 17, of question 81 and 77 is only 12 respondents.

- (n=12-334)

8.5.2.2. Participation in and awareness of/interest in EU funding

In the next section, we turn to (research and mobility) funding. The first question in the

MORE3 Global survey related to whether respondents obtained different types of funding,

including EU funding (EU Framework Programme Funding or Horizon 2020, ERC or

MSCA). Table 47 reveals that while a majority of researchers has obtained funding from

national sources through a competitive process (by way of proposal) and a significant

share has also received industry funding, the various EU funding instruments are much

less frequently used. This is however not surprising, as by definition all of the researchers

present in the figure work outside the EU.

The share of “no funding” in the group of researchers which was never internationally

mobile (TG4) indicates that funding does play a role for mobility, either in that more able

researchers may be better at obtaining funding for their research and move due to this

funding, or in that funding is simply a pre-requisite for mobility.


October 2017 192

Table 47: Types of funding obtained by researchers in the four groups

ERC Marie

Sklodowska-Curie Action

Industry funding

National (public)

competitive

funding

Other EU funding (eg.

H2020) No funding

TG1 0.96 7.19 23.98 66.67 7.43 26.14

TG2 0.76 5.70 24.33 62.74 5.70 29.28

TG3 0.56 3.93 17.42 64.04 3.37 33.15

TG4 1.38 0.69 23.01 54.32 2.53 39.24

Total 1.10 3.36 22.87 59.58 4.28 33.93 Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 86: “Have you obtained competitive funding for basic research from one or

more of the following sources?”

- (n=1,727)

Low use of EU funding in the sample of researchers currently working outside the EU

does not preclude very high levels of interest in EU funding, particularly for the

instruments ERC and Horizon2020 or framework programme-type funding. General

interest in EU funding is even higher at 76%.

Target groups: By group of researchers, interest is high even for the non-mobile (TG4),

indicating the potential of EU funding to foster collaboration and mobility (as funding can

in general only be obtained for non-EU researchers by collaboration with EU researchers).

Figure 109: Interest in applying for EU funding across researcher groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n= 1,727)

- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n= 417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 87: “Are you interested in applying for (other) EU funding in the future?

60.7

44.6

60.3

76.2

58.8

43.2

62.6

77.2

60.1

53.2

64.6

83.3

66.9

47.2

62.9

78.7

60.6

42.2

57.3

73.1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


ERC

MSC

Oth

er EU

Genera

l inte

rest

ERC

MSC

Oth

er EU

Genera

l inte

rest

ERC

MSC

Oth

er EU

Genera

l inte

rest

ERC

MSC

Oth

er EU

Genera

l inte

rest

ERC

MSC

Oth

er EU

Genera

l inte

rest


October 2017 193

Given such high interest in applying for EU funding, the question of the most important

barriers to accessing EU research funding is of particular relevance. Figure 110 shows

that these barriers relate mainly to lack of knowledge about the instruments and the

procedures for applying for EU funding. As a consequence – given that two thirds of

respondents don’t know about EU funding – the other barriers are much less relevant.

These barriers could become more relevant if researchers knew more about funding

opportunities and effectively tried applying for the funding.

Figure 110: Barriers for applying for EU funding

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 88: “What are the main barriers for applying for EU funding? - (n=1,727)

Target groups: By groups of researchers, it is not surprising that researchers with EU

exposure (TG1 and 2) are less likely to cite lack of knowledge of programmes and

procedures as a barrier to the use of EU funding. However, given this increased

knowledge, EU researchers working abroad (TG1) also report administrative burden

much more as a barrier than the three other groups. By contrast, researchers who were

never mobile (TG4) much more frequently cite language as being as a barrier than do the

mobile researchers from TG1-TG3.

67.5

59.5

37.3 36.8

24.4

11.69.4

6.54.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Knowle

dge o

f pro

gra

ms

Knowle

dge o

f pro

cedure

s

Adm

inist

rativ

burd

en

Com

petit

ion

Lack

of matc

hing fu

nd

Lang

uage

Inte

rest in

mobilit

y

Lack

of inte

rest

No b

arriers


October 2017 194

Table 48: Barriers to the use of EU funding by group of researchers


Administrative burden 37.3% 49.6% 38.8% 36.5% 31.1%

Competition 36.8% 39.3% 40.3% 33.1% 35.2%

Lack of interest to be mobile 9.4% 6.0% 5.3% 6.2% 13.0%

Lack of interest 6.5% 5.0% 3.4% 6.2% 8.2%

Lack of knowledge of programs 67.5% 58.8% 59.7% 77.5% 71.9%

Lack of knowledge of the procedure 59.5% 46.8% 53.6% 68% 65.7%

Lack of matching fund 24.4% 20.9% 26.2% 22.5% 26%

Language 11.6% 1.0% 6.8% 10.7% 18.3%

No barriers 4.5% 5.3% 5.3% 3.4% 4.0%


- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 88: “What are the main barriers for applying for EU funding?

We now want to consider how this lack of knowledge about EU funding programmes

relates to the importance of funding as a factor for or barrier to mobility (Table 44). This

helps in understanding the potential role of EU instruments for overcoming barriers to

mobility or increasing the attractiveness of the EU. For a potentially positive effect of

funding, the lack of knowledge should be lower in the left column of the table below than

in the right half when EU researchers intend to move back to the EU, or when non-EU

researchers want to become mobile to the EU. Among those who see funding as a main

motive for moving, the lack of knowledge is indeed somewhat lower at 60% compared

with lack of knowledge across all researchers (68%). Moreover, lack of knowledge is also

somewhat lower in EU researchers intending or considering moving back to the EU (50

resp. 57% vs. 59%), as well as in non-EU researchers asked about a potential move to

the EU (65 resp. 67% vs. 78 and 72%). Among non-EU researchers who indicated that

lack of funding was a reason to leave the EU, the share of researchers with a lack of

knowledge is lower by 6 percentage points than for group 2 in general.127 However, the

lack of knowledge is higher among non-EU researchers indicating that funding was a

barrier to past or actual mobility.

Overall, these differences are lower than registered for the awareness of Euraxess Links

(an instrument addressing the availability of positions, e.g. awareness of Euraxess Links

among EU researchers indicating availability of positions as a difficult factor to move back

to Europe was 23 percentage points higher than overall). This suggests that the

availability of positions may be more directly related to enabling researchers coming back

to the EU, or being mobile to the EU, while research funding may be a subsequent issue,

once a position is secured or when the position does not bring funding with it. This is

supported by the analysis of barriers to mobility in section 8.3.2., where availability of

positions is more often cited as a barrier.

127 Note that questions 56 and 77 are based on 14, 10 and 21 respondents, so should be interpreted with care.


October 2017 195

Table 49: Lack of knowledge of EU funding among researchers who indicated that

funding was an important factor or barrier to mobility vs. lack of knowledge among all respondents


Notes: - Based on question 88: “What are the main barriers for applying for EU funding?” and the

questions indicated in the table.

- (n=10-281) - Note that questions 56 and 77 are below 30 respondents, so should be interpreted with

caution.

Overall, this analysis of EU funding and Euraxess Links as EU instruments to foster the

attractiveness of ERA suggests that instruments targeted at the availability of positions

and at research and mobility funding can potentially play a very important role as

enablers of mobility. They can hence work as a kind of framework condition for realising

the full attractiveness potential of the EU. However, they are not the main drivers of

Availability of research funding as a… Lack of knowledge of programs

…main motive for mobility (Question 45) 60.0% 67.5%


TG 1 (Question 48) 56.6% 58.8%

TG 2 (Question 58) 57.2% 59.7%

TG 3 (Question 74) 89.5% 77.5%


TG 1 Moving back to Europe (Question 55 – Research funding)

48.6% 58.8%

TG 1 Moving back to Europe (Question 55 – Mobility

funding) 50.0% 58.8%

TG 1 Moving back to Europe (Question 56) 57.1% 58.8%

TG 3 & TG 4 Moving to Europe (Question 72 – Research funding)

64.8% 77.5% resp. 71.9%

TG 3 & TG 4 Moving to Europe (Question 72 – Mobility funding)

67.3%

77.5% resp. 71.9%


TG 2 Moving to Europe (Question 62 – Research funding) 69.5% 59.7%

TG 2 Moving to Europe (Question 62 - Mobility funding) 69.0% 59.7%

TG 3 Moving to a non-EU Country (Question 77 - Research

funding) 81.0% 77.5%

TG 3 Moving to a non-EU Country (Question 77 - Mobility funding)

100.0% 77.5%

…decision for leaving the EU

TG 2 (Question 64) 54.0% 59.7%

TG1: Considering moving back to Europe (Question 53) 53.0% 67.5%

TG1: Undertaken concrete steps in order to return to Europe (Question 54)

53.0% 67.5%


October 2017 196

career-oriented mobility, so that policies also need to more directly target the

attractiveness of research positions themselves, by improving conditions for scientific

knowledge production (as in working with leading scientists, research autonomy,

attractive career paths, and an attractive time balance between teaching, research and

administration work). The availability of positions is an important motive when mobility

entails a change of employer among EU researchers moving abroad, often in a forced

way (escape mobility) (see section 8.3.1.). However, EU and national research policies

should also aim at increasing the attractiveness of ERA for researchers from well-working

systems, who can self-choose mobility. Research funding is also one of those conditions

enabling scientific knowledge production but it does not rank as high as a main motive

for mobility.

Coming from the potential importance of EU instruments as a lever for attractiveness to

the current levels of awareness and use by researchers, there is clearly potential for

increased awareness and use among researchers.


October 2017 197

9. Summary of main findings

Below, an overview is provided of the main findings of this Global survey. Please note

that this Global survey does not provide representative data at the global level,

nor at the level of the countries covered. Therefore, results will need to be

interpreted with care. However, the findings exhibit in general a high consistency with

previous research.

9.1. Profile characteristics – sociodemographic information and dual positions

GENDER IMBALANCES, IN PARTICULAR ACROSS CAREER STAGES AND IN TECHNOLOGICAL

FIELDS

40% of the sample of researchers working outside the EU are women. Among leading

researchers, female representation is clearly smaller (R4: 28%) than at the first career

stage (R1: 51%). In technological fields in particular, gender imbalance appear; only

23% of researchers in the field of Engineering and Technology are female.

DUAL POSITIONS ARE RARE, UNIVERSITY OR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS ARE OFTEN

PRIMARY EMPLOYER

12% of the sample of researchers currently working outside the EU are employed in

more than one institution or organisation. Dual positions between high education

institutions and non-HEI are even rarer (7%). A university or a HEI is the primary

employment position for most of those in the sample that are employed in a dual

position.

9.2. Education and training: PhD studies

PHD REMAINS THE MAIN POINT OF ENTRY INTO RESEARCH CAREERS: 94% OF RESEARCHERS

HOLD A PHD OR ARE ENROLLED IN PHD STUDIES

A very high share of the sample of researchers has either finished their PhD studies

(80%) or is currently enrolled in a PhD program (14%). The total shares of researchers

having obtained a PhD or being currently enrolled in PhD programs range from 90%

(non-mobile researchers; TG4) to 99% in the group of EU researchers working abroad

(TG1). In our sample, about 75% of researchers have obtained or will obtain their PhD in

an OECD-country. 19% have obtained or will obtain their PhD from an emerging country,

such as a BRICS country or a different country from Asia, South America or Africa. More

than half obtained or will obtain their PhD from an Anglo-Saxon country, while 27%

graduated or will be graduating from an EU country (including the three associated

countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). The shares of PhD holders among

researchers in our sample are higher in developed OECD economies than in emerging

countries. By contrast, while overall joint degrees are rare (8%), they are more common

in the emerging countries (14% in BRICS and 20% in ‘other’ countries).

STRUCTURED PHD-STUDIES PARTICULARLY COMMONPLACE IN THE US

In the US, 82% of PhD students surveyed were embedded in supervisory committees or

doctoral schools, against 46% in the EU and 37% in the BRICS countries. In our sample,

only 10% of researchers in the US did their PhD following the more traditional model

where PhD-students are supervised by a single researcher, against 55% in the BRICS,

44% in the EU and 33% in the non-EU-OECD.


October 2017 198

TRANSFERABLE SKILLS ARE WIDESPREAD, BUT DIFFERENT COUNTRIES EMPHASISE

DIFFERENT SKILLS

In our sample, on average 93% respond that they have received some form of training in

transferable skills during their PhD studies, predominantly related to skills necessary for

research activities, such as research skills (88%) or skills related to creative thinking,

decision making and communication (67%-71%). More general work management-

related skills, such as time and project management, as well as the ability to teamwork,

come behind at around 50%. Skills related to engaging with other areas of society and

business, such as collaboration with citizens (24%), entrepreneurship (9%) or intellectual

property rights (12%), are least frequently received by the researchers in our sample, in

line with the MORE3 EU HE survey.

By country of graduation, collaboration with citizens and governments is much less a

feature in PhD studies in the EU (14%) than in either non-EU-OECD countries (28%) or

in the BRICS countries (28%). Training on communication and presentation skills is near

omni-present in the US PhDs in the sample, while they reach only 50% in other countries

and 68% in the EU. A similar picture can be seen for training on decision-making skills,

where the US also leads. Interestingly, entrepreneurship is a skill that is mostly taught in

PhD studies of other countries, most notably in emerging or developing countries from

Asia, South America and Africa.

Ethics is less taught in the EU and in other countries (around 28%) than in non-EU-OECD

countries (56%). Proposal and grant writing is more frequently taught in the US (57%)

than in the EU (42%), as is teamwork (65 vs 47%), creative thinking (88 vs 68%) and

time management (71% vs. 48%).

9.3. Career Paths

THE SHARES OF RESEARCHERS AGREEING THAT RECRUITMENT IS TRANSPARENT, PUBLICLY

ADVERTISED AND MERIT-BASED ARE THE HIGHEST AMONG THOSE CURRENTLY WORKING IN

THE US (AS COMPARED TO OTHER NON-EU REGIONS)

The majority of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey agreed that job

vacancies are sufficiently externally and publicly advertised (67%), and that recruitment

processes are sufficiently transparent (62%) and merit-based (66%). In comparison with

other country groups, the shares of researchers perceiving recruitment sufficiently

publicly advertised (81%), transparent (74%) and merit-based (72%) are the highest in

the US. Of course, researchers´ perception of recruitment processes in their home

institution also depends on the type of contract they have. The share of researchers with

permanent contracts that perceive recruitment sufficiently merit-based (70%) and that

perceive it is transparent (66%) is higher than the share of researchers with fixed-term

contracts (60% and 54% respectively).

THE SHARE OF RESEARCHERS AGREEING THAT CAREER PROGRESSION IS MERIT-BASED AND

TRANSPARENT AND TENURE CONTRACTS ARE BASED ON MERIT ONLY IS THE HIGHEST IN THE

US (AS COMPARED TO OTHER NON-EU REGIONS)

Researchers’ perception with respect to the regulation and determinants of career

progression show a similar pattern as compared to the MORE3 EU HE survey, but are

lower on average. Career paths are considered transparent by 61% of researchers, but

slightly less merit-based (57%). As with recruitment, there is little variation between

target groups in the perception of whether career paths are clear and transparent for

researchers, but larger differences between country groups and between different types

of contract are observed. In comparison to other country groups, the share of

researchers agreeing that obtaining a tenured contract based on merit only is common

practice is particularly high among researchers currently working in the US (67%), while

in BRICS countries only 50% of researchers agree. While 63% of researchers with


October 2017 199

permanent contracts think that obtaining a tenured contract is based on merit only, in

the group of researchers with fixed-term contracts this share is only 45%.

INTERNATIONAL AND INTERDISCIPLINARY MOBILITY IS PERCEIVED AS BEING IMPORTANT

FOR RECRUITMENT, WHILE INTERSECTORAL MOBILITY IS LAGGING BEHIND

The ranking of factors perceived as being important for recruitment is similar, as in the

MORE3 EU HE survey. While 73% of researchers perceive international mobility as a

positive factor for recruitment and 62% of researchers agree with respect to

interdisciplinary mobility experiences, only 43% of the sample of researchers perceive

intersectoral mobility experiences to the private sector to be a positive factor for

recruitment. International mobility is the factor with the highest shares of researchers

perceiving it as positive for recruitment in comparison to other factors across all target

groups and career stages (between 70% and 81%). The largest difference between

target groups can be observed with respect to transferable skills: while more than two-

thirds of EU researchers working abroad think that it is important (71%), only about half

of the non-mobile non-EU researcher agrees (55%).

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES AND ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF RESEARCH OUTPUT ARE

POSITIVELY PERCEIVED FOR BOTH CAREER PROGRESSION AND RECRUITMENT;

INTERSECTORAL MOBILITY LESS SO

69% of the sample of researchers perceive international mobility experiences and 67%

perceive alternative forms of research output as positive factors for career progression.

As for recruitment, intersectoral mobility is less important in this respect: only 40% of

researchers agree with intersectoral mobility experiences being a positive factor for

career progression (in a sample of mainly HEI-based researchers). Overall, differences

between target groups are rather small.

In terms of skills perceived as important for career progression, the results are also

similar to the MORE3 HE EU survey. Skills at the core of an academic research career are

most valued, such as skills regarding critical and autonomous thinking, decision making

and problem solving, and communication and presentation (all above 95%).

Entrepreneurship (57%) and dealing with IPR (53%) are on average deemed to be less

important for career progression, but there are some differences between target groups.

Generally, European researchers currently working abroad (TG1) attach less importance

to digital skills, entrepreneutship, ethics and IPR than other target groups, but emphasise

people and time management, proposal and grant writing, networking and

communication skills instead.

THE SHARE OF RESEARCHERS THAT LACK CONFIDENCE ABOUT THEIR FUTURE CAREER

PROSPECTS IS THE HIGHEST IN THE GROUP OF EARLY-STAGE RESEARCHERS (R1 AND R2),

WHILE LEADING OR ESTABLISHED RESEARCHERS (R4 AND R3) SHOW HIGHER LEVELS OF

OPTIMISM

On average, 79% of the researchers in the sample feel very confident (27%) or

somewhat confident (52%) about the future prospects for their research careers. Only

4% of researchers report that they very much lack confidence about the prospects. Non-

EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (TG3) show the highest

shares of (very) confident researchers (85%) with respect to their future career

prospects. The share of confident researchers is lower among EU researchers currently

working abroad (75% of TG1), which is in part explained by the on average younger age

of researchers in this group.


October 2017 200

9.4. Working conditions

91% OF THE SURVEYED RESEARCHERS HAVE A FULL-TIME POSITION AND ARE EMPLOYED IN

THEIR CURRENT POSITION FOR 12 YEARS ON AVERAGE

The share of female researchers working part-time (12%) is higher than the share of

male researchers (6%) across all target groups. Larger differences between target

groups can be observed regarding the length of employment, pointing at the

heterogeneity of research careers. Differences between target groups are most evident

between European researchers currently working abroad (TG1: 7 years) and non-EU

researchers who have never worked abroad (TG4: 14 years). However, these differences

could be based on the different age structure of the different target groups. We observe

a relatively high share of younger researchers in TG1 (65% are younger than 44 years)

while the share of younger researchers in TG4 is lower (43% are younger than 44 years).

Another explanation might be rooted in differences with respect to the contractual

situation of researchers. The share of researchers with permanent or open-ended

contracts is the lowest within the group of European researchers currently working

outside Europe (51% of TG1), while in comparison to the other target groups the share

of researchers having fixed-term contracts is twice as high. Except for the US, which

shows a relatively high share (40%) of fixed-term contracts, no large differences in the

contractual situation of researchers across different (non-EU) country groups are found.

ALMOST ONE IN FOUR RESEARCHERS FEELS WELL PAID (23%), AND HALF OF THE

RESEARCHERS THINK THAT THEY ARE PAID A REASONABLE SALARY (49%)

The share of researchers feeling well or reasonably paid is the highest among EU

researchers currently working abroad (80% of TG1, compared to 72% in total), and it is

considerably lower among the non-mobile non-EU researchers (66% of TG4). Moreover,

some variation with respect to country groups are observed: the shares of researchers

feeling well paid is particularly high in Anglo-Saxon (31%) and non-EU OECD countries

(27%). Female and male researchers perceive their remuneration rather similarly, but it

is likely that the data understate the true wage gap as female and male perceptions of

identical salary levels are known to deviate systematically.

RESEARCHERS’ PERCEPTION OF REMUNERATION CONSIDERABLY DIFFERS BETWEEN CAREER

STAGES AND DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF POSITION

The share of early stage researchers feeling well paid is rather low (7% of R1) in

comparison to the group of leading researchers who feel well paid (35% of R4). Overall,

researchers in higher career stages tend to be more satisfied with their remuneration -

this is likely to reflect pay schemes based on seniority. Moreover, the shares of

researchers feeling well-paid with full-time positions (25%) and with permanent

contracts (28%) are higher than the shares of part-time researchers (17%) and

researchers with fixed-term contracts (18%) who feel well-paid. In line with this result,

more researchers working at one position only feel well paid or reasonably paid than

researchers having a dual position.

COMPARISON WITH NON-ACADEMIC POSITION: 57% OF RESEARCHERS WORKING IN

ACADEMIA FEEL THEY ARE PAID WORSE IN ACADEMIA

On average, 57% of researchers currently working inside academia feel less well paid

than their counterparts outside academia. In comparison to other target groups, the

lowest shares of researchers perceiving their remuneration package as worse compared

to researchers outside academia is located in the group of non-EU researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past (TG2).

Moreover, researchers feel less often worse paid than their non-academic counterparts

later in their career stage: while 49% of R4 researchers feel worse paid, the

corresponding proportion of R1 researchers is 65%. Although perception, this may reflect

an actual wage gap in early stages, which dissolves in later stages. The finding can be


October 2017 201

expected to influence the attractiveness of academic research careers for younger

researchers.

Differences between country groups are less apparent, but the share of researchers

feeling worse paid than their non-academic counterparts is the highest in the US (67%)

(as compared to other non-EU regions). This result could be based on a higher number

and more lucrative research opportunities in the industry sector offered in the US.

However, further research would be needed to confirm this.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF RESEARCHERS WORKING OUTSIDE ACADEMIA CONFIRMS THE PATTERN:

30% FEEL THEY ARE PAID WORSE OUTSIDE ACADEMIA

Only 30% of researchers working outside academia perceive their remuneration to be

worse than the remuneration of people working inside academia, while 27% feel better

paid. Some heterogeneity between target groups is observed: 35% of non-mobile non-

EU researchers (TG4) perceive their remuneration to be worse than that of their

colleagues inside academia, and only 24% of mobile researchers (TG1, TG2 and TG3)

agree. Vice versa, the shares of researchers thinking that they are better paid than

researchers with similar skills inside academia is higher in the group of mobile

researchers. There are no remarkable differences between career stages.

9.5. Mobility and collaboration

9.5.1. International long term mobility (>3 month)

THE US IS THE MOST POPULAR DESTINATION COUNTRY, FOLLOWED BY GERMANY AND

FRANCE (IN LINE WITH MORE3 EU HE SURVEY)

Half of the EU researchers who are currently working outside the EU (TG1) have been

long-term mobile in the EU before. By far the most popular EU-destination was the

United Kingdom, followed by Germany and France.

The most popular EU-destinations for non-EU researchers (TG2) are Germany, France,

United Kingdom and Spain .

For non-EU researchers who have been mobile but not towards the EU (TG3), the United

States , Australia , Canada , Japan and China are the most popular destinations.

45% OF THE RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE THE EU HAVE UNDERTAKEN AN

INTERNATIONAL MOVE WITH A CHANGE OF EMPLOYER AT LEAST ONCE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS

59% of the EU researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1) have moved and

changed employer at the same time at least once in the past ten years. About half of all

the moves of TG1 concerns a move with employer change. Moves with employer changes

are more common when it concerns mobility outside the EU (62%).

32% of the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (TG2) have

engaged in international mobility with a change of employer at least once in the past ten

years. About one quarter of all the moves of TG2 researchers concern mobility with

employer change: it is therefore half as frequent as among TG1 researchers. Moves with

employer changes are more common when they concerns mobility towards the EU

(75%).

DURATION OF MOBILITY: MOVES WITH A DURATION OF BETWEEN 3 TO 6 MONTHS ARE MOST

COMMON

Almost half of the moves concern mobility between 3 to 6 months, while 16% have a

duration of over 3 years.

When EU researchers (TG1) engage in moves outside the EU, the duration of this move is

usually longer (50% last for more than one year) than when they move inside the EU


October 2017 202

(39%). The duration of the moves to the EU of non-EU researchers who have been to the

EU in the past (TG2) is on average shorter.

CONTRACT TYPE: FIXED-TERM CONTRACTS ARE MOST COMMON

About 47% of the moves involve fixed-term contracts (of which about half are fixed-term

contracts lasting up to one year). 9% of the moves concern permanent/open contracts

and 22% indicated to have no contract.

EU researchers who are currently mobile outside the EU frequently engage in mobility

without a contract (31%) (this might indicate that they are engaging in a research stay

abroad, but remain employed at their home institution). About 5% undertake mobility

with a permanent contract and 50% with a fixed-term contract. When engaging in

mobility towards non-EU countries, the share of permanent contracts (19%) is higher

than compared to EU moves, consistent with the pattern of longer stays found above.

DESTINATION SECTOR: MAIN SECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT IS BY FAR A UNIVERSITY OR HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTE

The main sector of employment of the different moves is university or other higher

education institutes (81%). This is very similar across the different target groups (>

80%). 11% of the international moves are related to moves towards the public or

government sector.

In their long–term moves, researchers who have been abroad but not towards the EU

(TG3) engage more frequently in intersectoral mobility, most notably towards the private

(not-for-profit) sector (7%) compared to the other target groups (2-3%).

9.5.2. Retention and return potential

1/5 OF THE EU RESEARCHERS ARE INTERESTED IN RETURNING TO THE EU

20% of the EU researchers currently working outside the EU are interested in returning

to the EU in the coming 12 months. Comparing UK, German, French and Italian

researchers currently working outside the EU, we observe that UK researchers are the

least inclined to return to the EU in the coming 12 months (7%) compared to German

(26%), French (25%) and Italian researchers (22%). An interest in returning to the EU is

highest amongst early stage R1 and R2 researchers.

POSITIVE EXPERIENCE OF NON-EU RESEARCHERS WITH RESPECT TO THEIR MOBILITY TO THE

EU

77% of the non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (TG2) would have

liked to stay in Europe as a researcher. 92% are also interested in working in the EU in

the future. This interest in working in the EU in the future is highest amongst first stage

researchers (R1) and lowest amongst leading researchers (R4).

96% of the non-EU researchers who have been to the EU in the past (TG2) would

recommend working in the EU as a researcher to other colleagues.

9.5.3. Interest to work in the EU

NON-EU RESEARCHERS HAVE HIGH LEVELS OF INTEREST IN WORKING IN THE EU

85% of the non-EU researchers with no working experience in the EU (TG3) would be

interested to work in the EU in the future. 42% of these interested researchers have also

recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe.

83% of the researchers that had been mobile more than 10 years ago indicated that they

would be interested to work in Europe as a researcher in the future. In addition, 37% of

the researchers which indicated that they would be interested in doing so have also

recently investigated the possibility of working as a researcher in Europe.


October 2017 203

Interestingly, also among the non-mobile non-EU researchers (TG4) 89% indicated that

they would be interested to work as a researcher in Europe in the future. In addition,

37% of the researchers that indicated this interest have also recently investigated the

possibility of working as a researcher in Europe.

The potential of attracting non-EU researchers is evidenced by these high shares. The

analysis of motives, and in particular barriers for mobility further sheds light on what

hinders this potential to be fully deployed.

9.5.4. International short-term mobility (<3 month)

NON-EU RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE BEEN TO THE EU IN THE PAST ARE MORE FREQUENTLY

ENGAGED IN SHORT-TERM MOBILITY THAN ARE RESEARCHERS IN OTHER TARGET GROUPS

The share of non-EU researchers who have been to the EU in the past (TG2) and has

been short-term mobile in the last ten years (60%) is higher than both that of EU

researchers working abroad (TG1; 46%) and non-EU researchers that have never been in

Europe before (TG3; 51%). This is the case for all the types of short-term mobility

included in the survey – conferences, study visits, and meetings with supervisors,

partners or collaborators.

LOWER SHORT-TERM MOBILITY OF RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING IN THE US,

AUSTRALIA AND CANADA

When looking at the difference between countries (of employment), it is observed that

researchers working in non-European Anglo-Saxon countries (US, Australia, Canada)

tend to be less frequently short-term mobile compared to researchers working in the

included South American and Asian countries. This difference might be related to the fact

that foreign researchers usually display a lower likelihood of being short-term mobile

than those working in their home country. Indeed, the share of foreign researchers tends

to be higher in Anglo-Saxon countries compared to other world regions.

9.5.5. European network

A VAST MAJORITY OF RESEARCHERS CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN CONNECTIONS WITH THE EU

AFTER LEAVING THE EU, WITH IN PARTICULAR A STRONG CONNECTION WITH EU-BASED

SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS FOR NON-EU RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE BEEN TO THE EU

In general, EU researchers abroad (TG1) and non-EU researchers who have been to the

EU (TG2) maintain strong connections with the EU through informal networks;

participation in conferences; linkage mechanisms; collaboration with scientific journals;

contacts with official diaspora networks etc. One of the largest differences between EU

researchers (TG1) and non-EU researchers (TG2) is found in the share of researchers

that collaborate with scientific journals in Europe: the share is 20 percentage points

higher among non-EU researchers (TG2). This finding might be related to the fact that

their stay in Europe encourages them to publish their work in scientific publications

offered by European publishers (e.g. Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, or other international

publishers based in the EU).

9.5.6. Intersectoral mobility

ABOUT 20% OF THE SAMPLE OF RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE THE EU HAS

ENGAGED IN INTERSECTORAL MOBILITY

No large differences in intersectoral mobility between the different target groups are

observed. Beyond higher education institutions, the sector that attracts most researchers

is the public sector. Four out of ten researchers consider that this type of mobility is


October 2017 204

neither relevant for recruitment nor for career progression, regardless of whether they

have been intersectorally mobile in the past.

9.5.7. Interdisciplinary mobility

ABOUT ONE THIRD OF THE SAMPLE OF RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE THE EU

HAS ENGAGED IN INTERDISCIPLINARY MOBILITY

INTERDISCIPLINARY MOBILITY IS HIGHER IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY THAN IN

OTHER DISCIPLINES

Interdisciplinary mobility is higher in the field of Engineering and Technology 36%

compared to the total of 33%

Within this field the EU researchers currently working outside the EU (TG1) in the sample

are more interdisciplinary mobile than the non-EU researchers (TG2, TG3 and TG4).

Conversely, non-EU researchers display lower shares of interdisciplinary mobility than EU

researchers abroad in other fields like the Medical Sciences, Natural Sciences and the

Social Sciences.

Interdisciplinary mobility is considered as a positive factor for recruitment and for career

progression by nearly six out of ten researchers. However, those with interdisciplinary

experience tend to have a slightly less positive view of the effects of this type of mobility

than those that have never worked in other disciplines before.

9.6. Attractiveness of the ERA

The attractiveness of the ERA is a result of the structure of career paths and the quality

of working conditions. International or intersectoral mobility may be driven by the extent

to which researchers consider other countries and sectors attractive. Mobility indicators,

e.g. in terms of which countries researchers choose for their international mobility

experience, can therefore also be interpreted as indicators of attractiveness. In the

Global survey, both EU researchers abroad and non-EU researchers who were mobile to

the EU were asked to compare the EU in terms of conditions for research with their

current position in a non-EU country. Among these non-EU countries, the analysis

differentiated where possible by non-EU OECD country, the BRICS and other emerging

countries, as well as by the US and Anglo-Saxon countries.

INDIVIDUAL SATISFACTION WITH RESEARCH JOBS IS HIGH, BUT SATISFACTION WITH DOING

THAT RESEARCH IS LOWER

Looking at non-science related working conditions in the current research employment

outside Europe (e.g. job and social security, social environment and recognition or

researchers’ satisfaction at work), as well as at working conditions relevant to scientific

knowledge production (research funding, intellectual support and time balance between

research and teaching) illustrates the conundrum of embarking on a career in research –

a very high intellectual challenge and satisfaction with job-specific content runs up

against uncertain career perspectives or the opportunities for continually engaging in a

satisfactory job. Moreover, researchers employed in the US are particularly satisfied. The

shares of satisfied researchers currently working in the US is above average in every

category but financial security.

SATISFACTION WITH WORKING CONDITIONS IS HIGHER IN MORE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES

More developed countries show above-average shares of satisfied researchers in all used

categories of satisfaction at work. This is the case for the OECD and Anglo-Saxon

countries, and the US in particular. The BRICS and other nations are especially below-

average with respect to satisfaction with quality of life and dynamic work environment.


October 2017 205

Researchers employed in the US are particularly satisfied with their reputation and

contribution to society and their level of responsibility. Moreover, in the US the share of

satisfied researchers regarding research funding, intellectual support, balance between

research and teaching and career and mobility perspectives is the highest compared to

other non-EU country groups. This is in line with the fact that research universities in the

US are in the vanguard according to various composite rankings, including several

aspects like research, citations and teaching. It should be noted, however, that the US-

American higher education system is overall very heterogeneous and the degree of

difference with other countries/regions can be in part due to bias in the sample towards

the better ranked HEI in the US.

REGARDING MOST ASPECTS OF WORKING CONDITIONS, THE SHARE OF SATISFIED

RESEARCHERS IS THE HIGHEST IN THE GROUP OF EU RESEARCHERS WORKING ABROAD

The share of satisfied researchers regarding different aspects of social environment and

satisfaction at work is the highest in the group of EU researchers working abroad (TG1).

Similarly, EU researchers currently working abroad have the highest shares of

researchers satisfied with research funding, facilities and equipment and collaboration

with leading scientists as well as time balance and research autonomy. The same pattern

is found in terms of career and mobility perspectives. Although the share of satisfied

researchers in terms of social security is highest in the group of EU researchers working

abroad (TG1), in terms of job security and pension plans, this group shows the lowest

shares of satisfied researchers. In terms of training and education no remarkable

variance between target groups is found.

EU RESEARCHERS ABROAD, IN PARTICULAR THOSE WORKING IN OECD COUNTRIES, ARE

MORE CRITICAL OF THE EU THAN NON-EU RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE BEEN MOBILE TO THE EU

IN THE PAST

EU researchers currently working abroad (TG1) and non-EU researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past (TG2) were asked to compare working inside the EU with

working outside, from their experience. Overall, EU researchers working in economically

developed non-EU OECD countries rate the EU as worse than their current country of

employment with respect to most categories (career perspectives; conditions for

scientific knowledge production; engagement with industry; perspectives for mobility;

availability of positions and remuneration), with the exception of education and training;

administrative burden; working with leading scientists and pension plan.

With respect to EU researchers working in emerging countries (the BRICS and other

countries), the assessment of the EU is generally better with regard to the categories

remuneration and other material factors, quality of education and training and

engagement with industry. In this group, the EU is assessed as worse with regard to the

attractiveness of career paths and the availability of positions. EU researchers who are

currently working in the BRICS see conditions for scientific knowledge production as

better in the EU and mobility perspectives as worse in the EU, while it is the other way

round for EU researchers currently working in other countries (non-EU OECD ones). A

higher share of researchers from both country groups (non-EU OECD and BRICS)

however sees working with leading scientists in the EU as better than in the countries

where they work now.

A DIFFERENT PICTURE IS PROVIDED BY NON-EU RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE

EU IN THE PAST: THE EU IS PERCEIVED AS BETTER THAN THE NON-EU COUNTRIES OF THE

OECD

Non-EU researchers who worked in the EU in the past provide a very different picture: for

them the EU is perceived to be better than the non-EU countries of the OECD, with the

exception of the political situation, where shares of “better” and “worse” are in balance,

as well as job security. The share of researchers who see something as better in the EU

is particularly high for working with leading scientists, research funding and mobility


October 2017 206

perspectives. This result might partly be driven by a lower number of researchers

working in the US. Non-EU researchers currently working in BRICS countries and in other

emerging countries who have been to the EU in the past, perceive the EU to be better

across all categories. They have a more positive opinion of the EU than researchers now

working in non-EU OECD countries, which is plausible as higher education institutions in

economically advanced countries are likely to offer more attractive conditions for

research.

EU RESEARCHERS WORKING IN THE US PERCEIVE THE US TO BE PARTICULARLY ATTRACTIVE

The comparison with the US is particularly striking among the EU researchers currently

working abroad (TG1), as all shares - with the exception of remuneration and other

material factors - are negative. This indicates that EU researchers currently working in

the US perceive the US to be better across all categories, even including the quality of

education and training. Among conditions for scientific knowledge production, there are

very few researchers who think that working with leading scientists, research funding and

career paths are better in the EU than in the US. The ease of commercialisation of

research results or collaboration with industry is also perceived to be much better in the

US than in the EU, similar to the availability of research positions more generally.

With respect to social security, job security and pension plan EU researchers abroad

(TG1) perceive the EU to be better than the US. This does not apply to remuneration,

however, which is negatively valued, i.e. the US is perceived to pay much better salaries

than EU countries (one does has to take into account heterogeneity in the EU). This

confirms the picture from the MORE3 EU HE survey. After graduation, talented EU

researchers seem to perceive better working conditions for a career in science in the US,

e.g. possibly due to earlier independence (autonomy), collaboration with leading

scientists and attractive career paths (tenure track models which link a tenured position

to a researcher’s output only).

ATTRACTIVENESS: QUALITY OF LIFE AND SOCIAL SECURITY NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED

WITH POSITIVE CONDITIONS FOR SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION IN THE EU

Even though the picture is more nuanced when looking at the entire group of non-EU

countries in the sample, it is apparent that in the comparison with the US in particular,

key career-related job characteristics are perceived to be better in the US than in the EU.

The EU is seen to be better concerning quality of life and social security. International

evidence and the MORE surveys show that career-related aspects are decisive factors for

researchers to move away from their home country (e.g. independence, working with

leading scientists and attractive career paths), while they move back rather for personal

or family reasons. This is further confirmed in the analysis of motives to move in this

survey (cf. infra). This general finding means that the current advantages of the EU in

terms of quality of life and job characteristics related to social and job security work less

as drivers of attractiveness, or as attractors of researchers, than the conditions which

influence the scientific productivity of researchers. Put differently: all else equal, quality

of life and social security will play a role, but the conditions for scientific knowledge

production need to be attractive first. The survey results therefore show a clear

opportunity for the EU to strengthen the positive framework with positive conditions for

scientific knowledge production.


October 2017 207

AMONG THE EU RESEARCHERS CURRENTLY WORKING OUTSIDE THE EU, 37% FELT FORCED

TO MOVE (ESCAPE MOBILITY) OUTSIDE THE EU

To better understand the findings in terms of attractiveness of different global areas, it is

interesting to look at the degree of forced, versus chosen/free mobility in the sample.

37% of the EU researchers abroad (TG1) described their mobility experiences as a form

of “escape mobility” when moving outside the EU (where the largest majority felt forced

to move because there were no options for a research career in their home country).

22% of the mobility concerned expected mobility (necessary for career purposes) and

22% chose to move for the opportunities international mobility offers in terms of

networking and knowledge exchange (exchange mobility).

AMONG THE NON-EU RESEARCHERS WHO HAVE WORKED IN THE EU IN THE PAST 50%

ENGAGED IN EXCHANGE MOBILITY (WHEN MOVING TO THE EU)

50% of the non-EU researchers moved to the EU (TG2) to engage in exchange mobility,

i.e. for the opportunities international mobility offers in terms of networking and

knowledge exchange. About 14% felt forced to move to the EU (escape mobility) and

10% engaged in expected mobility.

The escape mobility amongst researchers from the Anglo-Saxon countries and non-EU

OECD towards the EU is lower (less than 10%) compared to the escape mobility amongst

researchers from BRICS-countries and others. The expected mobility with respect to

improving working conditions is highest amongst researchers from other countries (19%)

while the exchange mobility for networking and knowledge exchange is highest amongst

Anglo-Saxon researchers and researchers from non-EU OECD countries (respectively

57% and 54%). This pattern again reflects the tendency to move to more developed

countries for reasons of scientific knowledge production and for improving the

researcher’s overall situation, further confirmed by the analysis of specific motives per

move (cf. next paragraph).

CAREER PROGRESSION IS OVERALL THE MOST FREQUENT MOTIVE FOR MOBILITY BOTH

TOWARDS THE EU AND OUTSIDE THE EU

The most frequently indicated motives for EU researchers to move outside the EU are the

availability of a suitable position (86%) and career progression (83%). The main motives

for non-EU researchers to move to the EU are working with leading scientists (95%) and

career progression (83%).

Consistent with existing literature, pension plan, social security and other benefits are

indicated least frequently as factors in the researchers’ decision to move outside the EU

(among TG1 researchers) and to the EU (among TG2 researchers). Job security is not

perceived either as very important in the decision of non-EU researchers for their move

towards the EU (34%).

CAREER PROGRESSION AND AVAILABILITY OF SUITABLE POSITIONS ARE MORE IMPORTANT

FOR MOVES THAT ENTAIL A CHANGE OF EMPLOYER, WHILE WORKING WITH LEADING

SCIENTISTS AND INTERNATIONAL NETWORKING ARE MORE IMPORTANT FOR MOVES THAT DO

NOT ENTAIL A CHANGE OF EMPLOYER

DIFFICULTIES TO FIND A JOB POSITION, TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR MOBILITY AND FUNDING

FOR RESEARCH ARE HINDERING RETURN MOBILITY

EU researchers willing to return seem to perceive more barriers to do so than non-EU

researchers experienced in their move to Europe (TG2).

The return of EU researchers to the EU seems to be hindered above all by the difficulties

in finding a job position (74%), and to obtain funding for mobility (73%) and for research

(72%). Non-EU researchers were hindered in their move towards the EU by finding a

suitable position, transferring social security and pension.


October 2017 208

EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY MOSTLY RELATE TO NETWORK, CAREER AND

COLLABORATION

Effects of stays abroad include scientific output (quality and quantity of publications), co-

authored publications, more input-related items such as the ability to obtain research

funding, gaining advanced research skills, interdisciplinary collaboration, network effects

in terms of increased contacts and recognition in the international research community,

job options in and outside academia, overall career progression, progression with respect

to salary, and quality of life.

Overall, for EU researchers working outside the EU (TG1) and other mobile researchers

(TG2 and TG3), a majority has experienced positive effects in all of these categories, with

the most negative effect being decrease in the quality of life for 19% of respondents. The

biggest effects among EU researchers are seen in terms of gaining an international

network (77%) and recognition in the research community (67%) with overall career

progression in between (71%). The expectations, i.e. motives, with which researchers

engage in mobility are thus confirmed in the effects. The effects of the stay abroad on

scientific output or on job options was less marked, but still positive.

EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL MOBILITY CONFIRM ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE US (AS

COMPARED TO OTHER NON-EU REGIONS)

Across all different possible effects, with the exception of quality of life, EU researchers

who currently work in the US report stronger effects than their counterparts working in

other non-EU countries. Differences with the effects from staying in other countries are

highest for obtaining competitive research funding, job options in- and outside academia,

quality of scientific output and recognition in the research community. The picture is

inverse for quality of life, where the effects are perceived as unchanged by researchers

currently working in the US but more positive in other countries where EU researchers

work.

9.7. Conclusions and Implications for policy

After summarising the results of the analysis in the previous sections, we now conclude

this chapter with a discussion of the main insights emerging from MORE3 Global Survey

as a basis for investigating more detailed policy options with respect to the five ERA

priorities in a separate table below.

9.7.1. Global characteristics of research

First, there is something like a global mindset on which skills and training (a PhD) matter

for a research career, and these factors matter for recruitment and career progression.

Intersectoral mobility between public research or higher education institutions on the one

side and firms on the other are low and not regarded very important for recruitment or

career progression, while international and interdisciplinary mobility are seen as more

influential experiences with higher expected effects on the researcher‘s scientific

knowledge production and career. The findings in the MORE3 Global survey on what

matters in research are consistent with the MORE3 EU HE survey and the previous

literature128.

By contrast, perceptions on how countries organise and structure research systems, i.e.

the conditions they provide for researchers to reach their maximum creative research

potential, are much more divergent. As an example, the structure of PhD training varies

128 Friesenhahn, I., Beaudry, C. The Global State of Young Scientists. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2014; Janger, J.,

Nowotny, K., Job choice in academia, Research Policy 45(8), 2016, p. 1672-1683.


October 2017 209

considerably, with the more traditional master-apprenticeship model still widespread in

some countries. This model also applies in the EU, whereas doctoral schools or more

team-based PhD-programmes dominate in the US. More structured PhD training also

allows for imparting a wider set of transferable skills, a finding for which the MORE3

Global survey gave indications. Satisfaction with merit-based recruitment and clear

career progression based on merit are also divergent, with levels of satisfaction among

respondents highest among researchers working in the US129.

The discrepancy between this ‘global awareness‘ on what matters for successful research

careers and the national differences in research systems give rise to varying perceptions

of attractiveness between countries as well as varying patterns of international mobility.

Below, we first present the attractiveness of ERA. Overall, even though our sample is not

representative at the country level, the findings of the MORE3 Global survey are in line

with and confirm not only the results from the MORE3 EU HE Survey, but also from other

studies. The pattern of responses between various subgroups of our respondents, as e.g.

related to career stages, gender, country groups by economic development, is also

plausible and intuitive. This lends support to the usability of the findings of this survey for

policy-making, while of course due to the limitations of the data conclusions should be

drawn with caution.

9.7.2. Attractiveness of ERA as seen by researchers currently working

abroad

The MORE3 EU HE Survey has provided information on the perception of the

attractiveness of the EU by EU and non-EU researchers working in the EU at the time of

the survey. The MORE3 Global survey complements this picture by the views of EU and

non-EU researchers currently working outside Europe. EU researchers currently working

in economically developed OECD countries generally perceive working outside the EU as

better than inside, with the exception of education and training, working with leading

scientists, administrative burden and pension plan. However, non-EU researchers who

were in the past mobile to the EU from OECD countries are more positive about the EU

and find it better in most categories than their current country of employment. The same

picture holds for BRICS and other countries, in that EU researchers working abroad are

more critical of the EU than non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU.

Overall, there is thus a mixed picture, with some researcher groups appreciating the EU

in terms of reserach, while others are more reserved.

However, a main insight from the MORE3 Global survey is how much the US stands out

in terms of attractiveness. The quality of the US system has been outlined above, with

respect to PhD studies, recruitment and career progression. But also by direct

comparison of research systems, it becomes evident that very few researchers think that

working in the EU is better than in the US. This holds for conditions for research

(scientific knowledge production), such as working with leading scientists, career

perspectives, research funding and research autonomy. It also holds for the quality of

education and training and remuneration, but not for factors such as social and job

security. Main reasons to move are also driven by research-related factors such as

collaboration with leading scientists, funding, etc. which are perceived to be very good in

the US. Effects of mobility underscore this analysis, with researchers working in the US

reporting significantly higher effects of mobility experiences with respect to scientific

ouptut and recognition in the research community.

129 The organisation of the research systems could be further documented by information on the use of

contracts and the number of temporary versus permanent positions. Though there, the MORE3 global survey can give only partial indications, as these factors in a post-PhD career further depend on age and seniority. These factors are diverse and not representative in the different subsets in the sample, and as with the excellence of the individual researcher, there is no objective indicator in the survey.


October 2017 210

9.7.3. Improving the attractiveness of ERA

By comparison with leading research systems, in particular the US, the EU definitely has

the potential to improve its attractiveness. The results of the MORE3 Global survey shed

light on two mutually-supporting policy directions; enablers refer to policies which tackle

main barriers to mobility, to come to the EU and drivers are those factors that are

decisive in mobility decisions.

Enablers

The two most important barriers to mobility are the availability of a suitable position and

availability of research funding. Euraxess and EU research funding play a potentially very

important role here, of course alongside instruments at the national level, as they

directly address the availability of positions and research funding. The results on

awareness and usage of these instruments among researchers in our sample show that

among researchers who single out the availability of positions or funding as main barriers

to mobility, the awareness is higher, in particular as regards the Euraxess platform. Both

in terms of awareness, e.g. for non-EU researchers who were not mobile to the EU, but

also in terms of actual usage, there is however room for improvement. The results of the

MORE3 Global survey (as in other studies) also show that policies aiming at return

mobility of senior researchers may be limited in their effectiveness, as interest in return

mobility is highest among early stage researchers.

Drivers

Funding and the availability of positions are, however, not the main motives driving self-

chosen mobility to attractive research systems. The factors which drive this are much

more related to the available career perspectives, in terms of a clear-cut tenure-track

model where a permanent position depends only on performance, on working with

leading scientists and other factors influencing scientific productivity (e.g. early

independence in research)130.

Improving the attractiveness of ERA hence also needs - in addition to enablers - an

improvement of the conditions for scientific knowledge production in Europe; an

improvement of the drivers of scientific productivity in terms of e.g. attractive career

paths; innovative funding models which allocate funding to the most promising research

(so more than just availability of funding); procedures for selection of young talented

scientists and high quality structured PhD training etc. These elements can generally be

more effectively dealt with at the national level through reforms in higher education

institutions, universities and research institutions; improving the effectiveness of national

research systems is indeed the first ERA priority. But the EU also has an important role to

play here, such as through facilitating the diffusion of best practice and monitoring of

progress in implementing ERA, and through funding high quality training, as via the

MSCA doctoral training subsidies. Note that funding schemes such as the ERC also

indirectly affect public research systems, as universities and higher education policies try

to improve in order to obtain more funding for excellent research.

As a basis for more detailed policy implications, we link the findings to the ERA and 3Os

(Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World) in a summary table. The policy

implications will be discussed in more detail in T4, also taking into account the results of

T1 MORE3 EU HE report.

130 Note that forced mobility involving a change of employer is associated with the availability of positions as a

main motive. However, the EU or ERA certainly wants to be attractive even for researchers from well-working systems who are not forced to move because of the dire situation in their home country.


October 2017 211

ERA priority areas Related to concepts Related findings in MORE3

1. More effective national

research systems

EU researchers working abroad perceive working outside the EU to be better than inside the EU.

This holds particularly for the group of EU researchers working in non-EU OECD countries.

Compared to other (non-EU) countries, the US stands out: career and mobility perspectives as

well as conditions for research, such as funding, working with leading scientists and the time

balance between teaching and research are perceived to be better. Non-EU researchers who have

worked in the EU in the past are much more positive with respect to their experience in the EU.

However, there is a clear potential for further improving the effectiveness of national research

systems, e.g. with respect to career perspectives and paths, recruitment and career progression

practices, funding, autonomy and other factors influencing the scientific productivity of

researchers. While remuneration does play a role, researchers do not see it as a main motive to

move.

2. Optimal transnational

cooperation and

competition

International cooperation and competition

International mobility is an important vehicle for international collaboration which in turn boosts

scientific productivity; approx. 75% of the mobile researchers (TG1 and TG2) have indicated

collaboration with researchers in organisations in another country. Fostering exchange mobility

(self-chosen mobility) or helping to overcome barriers to mobility is hence likely to contribute to

collaboration and scientific productivity.

The main expected hindering factors effecting mobility to the EU by non-EU researchers who have

never been to the EU are research - (obtaining funding for research, finding a suitable position) as

well as non-research related (transferring pension and social security).

The most important difficulties hindering return mobility of EU researchers currently working

outside the EU are related to obtaining funding for mobility and for research.

Non-EU researchers indicated that they are very interested in EU research funding, such as ERC-

or H2020-related schemes. Participation in these programmes can help international cooperation

and may help address global challenges.

While a majority of researchers in the sample has obtained funding from national sources in a

competitive way (by way of proposal) and a significant share has also received industry funding,

the various EU funding instruments are, however, much less used. This is not surprising, as by

definition all of the researchers work outside the EU. The most important hindering factors to

participate are lack of knowledge of programs and procedures. The lack of knowledge of programs

and procedures is also more frequently indicated as a hindering factor by non-mobile researchers

and by mobile researchers without EU-experience.

39% of the sample of researchers currently working outside the EU are satisfied with the

availability of research funding (this share is low compared to other working conditions). The EU


October 2017 212

researchers currently working outside the EU are most satisfied with research funding (55%)

compared to the non-EU researchers. Non-mobile researchers are also less satisfied compared to

mobile researchers.

3. An open labour market

for researchers

(facilitating mobility,

supporting training and

ensuring attractive

careers)

Facilitating mobility,

open labour market for

non-native researchers

See the evidence on barriers to mobility above.

Euraxess Links is known by about a quarter of our sample of researchers currently working outside

the EU. This awareness is, not surprisingly, lowest amongst the non-mobile researchers and the

researchers who have been mobile but not towards the EU. Euraxess Links is least known by

researchers currently working in non-EU OECD countries and Anglo-Saxon countries (except US)

and best known in BRICS countries and the US.

Open labour market

based on merit,

recognition of all

relevant skills

The majority of researchers who participated in the MORE3 Global survey agreed that job

vacancies are sufficiently publicly advertised, and that recruitment processes are sufficiently

transparent and merit-based. Non-mobile researchers perceive recruitment at their home

institution slightly less merit-based and transparent compared to mobile researchers. Also

differences between (non-EU) country groups are observed: in particular, researchers working in

the US have the highest approval rates and researchers from BRICS and other countries the

lowest

The majority of researchers believe in non-standard activities and paths as positive factors for

career progression. The main one is international mobility, followed by alternative forms of

research output and transferable skills. Some differences between (non-EU) country groups are

observed, with researchers in the US being more sceptical about the recognition of international

mobility experiences compared to all other country groups in the analysis.

Regarding their future career the vast majority of researchers working abroad agree that different

types of transferable skills are important for a successful future career; in particular those of

critical and autonomous thinking; decision-making and problem solving; communication and

presentation; project management and networking. The shares of researchers perceiving certain

skills as important for their future research careers are higher among those researchers who

actually received corresponding training (during their PhD training).

Training of research

skills, as well as other

skills to create

openness towards

careers outside

academia

The supervision of doctoral training varies between countries, with 60% of respondents embedded

in a doctoral school in the US and Canada, compared to below 30% for the EU or other non-EU

OECD countries. Other Anglo-Saxon countries such as Australia and New Zealand still have a large

share of supervision of doctoral training by just one senior researcher or supervisory committee

(contrary to US and Canada).

Training for young scientists in transferable skills broadens their labour market options. On

average in the MORE3 Global survey, 93% of PhD candidates receive training in transferable skills.

US graduates report more often having received training in transferable skills in various areas than

EU PhD graduates. Research skills are the most commonly trained skills. Communication and


October 2017 213

presentation skills, decision making and problem solving, and critical and autonomous thinking are

also well covered in PhD programs. The least often offered training is entrepreneurship,

collaboration with citizens, government and broader society. However, differences with respect to

researchers’ perception of important skills can be observed between researchers who have

received respective training in their past and researchers who have not received corresponding

training. In particular, while only 50% of researchers who have never had training in

entrepreneurship perceive it as an important skill, 87% of researchers who have received training

in entrepreneurship agree.

Attractiveness of

research careers

Among EU researchers working abroad, working outside the EU is generally perceived to be better

in terms of research autonomy, availability of suitable positions and attractive career paths.

Working outside the EU is perceived to be worse in terms of training, social security and pension.

Specifically for EU researchers in the US however, many researchers assess working conditions in

the US to be better than in the EU.

Among non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, working in the EU is in general

perceived to be better in terms of working with leading scientists, the availability of research

equipment and facilities, research funding and training. In addition, social working conditions are

also perceived as better.

International evidence and the MORE surveys show that working with leading scientists is a key

driver for researchers’ mobility and, thus plays a major role in the battle for attracting the best

talents. Only a small share of EU researchers currently working abroad think that working with

leading scientists is better in the EU in comparison to the working abroad, especially the US. On

the other hand, non-EU researchers who have been to the EU in the past do indicate that working

with leading scientists is better in the EU than abroad.

4. Gender equality and

gender mainstreaming

in research

Mainstreaming 40% of researchers in the sample of researchers currently working abroad are women.

Female researchers are more represented in the non-mobile group of researchers. Amongst the

mobile groups of researchers, the share of female researchers is the lowest with the group of non-

EU researchers who have been to the EU in the past.

There is a more balanced representation of female researchers in the early career stages (R1:

51%), but women are clearly underrepresented in the R4 career stage (R4: 28%). Male and

female researchers are not equally distributed across fields of science. The most balanced

disciplines are the Social Sciences, the Humanities and Medical Sciences in which about 50% of

the researchers are women. Conversely, in Engineering and Technology (23%), Agricultural

Sciences (29%) and in the Natural Sciences (31%), the presence of women is clearly lower.

Equality Women researchers have participated less in international mobility and collaboration over the last

ten years.

The shares for interdisciplinary and intersectoral mobility, however, are rather equal between men


October 2017 214

and women.

5. Optimal circulation and

transfer of scientific

knowledge

Open innovation Of all types of collaboration and mobility, intersectoral activities are the least common among the

academic researchers in the MORE3 Global survey. This result could be partly driven by legal

restrictions (e.g. depending on citizenship requirements). Intersectoral mobility is also not valued

highly in recruitment or career progression (as compared to international and interdisciplinary

mobility which are more frequently regarded a positive factor). This is similar to the results of the

MORE3 EU Survey.

The main focus of doctoral training is on research skills and critical and autonomous thinking.

There is only very limited cooperation with other sectors. Training for collaboration with non-

researchers (citizens, government and broader society) is among the least often received

trainings, often not even available as a training module.

Open science: - Digital innovations - New ways of

disseminating research results

- New ways of collaborating (globally)

The majority of researchers believe in non-standard activities and paths as positive factors for

their career progression. The main one is international mobility (69%), followed by alternative

forms of research output (67%) and transferable skills (62%).

84% of researchers consider innovative digital skills important for their future careers. Similarly,

84% consider collaboration with citizens, government and broader society as important.

Open to the world EU researchers who are currently working outside the EU still remain ‘connected’ with the EU;

66% participates in conferences in the EU, 41% are active in linkage mechanisms, 34%

collaborates with scientific journals and 3% keeps in touch with official diaspora networks.

Non-EU researchers who have been to the EU in the past also remain connected’ with the EU; as

with the EU researchers they participate in conferences (61%) and are active in linkage

mechanisms (42%). An interesting observation is that 52% indicates that they still collaborate

with European scientific journals (versus 34% of the EU researchers).

Knowledge circulation The above summarised factors of international, intersectoral, interdisciplinary mobility and

collaboration show that there is significant interaction with other researchers and disciplines and to

a lesser extent with other sectors. There are thus indications of a strong knowledge circulation and

efficiency in (academic) research, with important spillovers to other levels of society.

In addition, some heterogeneity between research stages with a higher share of early-stage

researchers thinking non-standard activities and paths as positive for their career might hint at

increasing knowledge circulation in the future.

6. International

cooperation

Cross-cutting priority Cf. priorities 2, 3 and 5.


October 2017 215

List of Tables

Table 1: Definitions of mobility forms analysed in MORE3 .......................................17

Table 2: Overview table communication strategy...................................................21

Table 3: Survey response ...................................................................................23

Table 4: Survey response rate per target group (completed responses) ...................24

Table 5: Overlap between reference countries in the MORE3 Global survey ...............25

Table 6: Distribution of respondents by countries of citizenship and target groups .....25

Table 7: Distribution of respondents by country of current employment and target

group………….. .......................................................................................27

Table 8: Comparison MORE2 and MORE3 response per country of current employment

..........................................................................................................28

Table 9: Sociodemographic information of researchers currently working outside the

EU……………………. ...................................................................................31

Table 10: Distribution of researchers across sectors of current employment by target

group……………….. ..................................................................................42

Table 11: Number of researchers by main position of current employment in a dual

position and by target group ..................................................................43

Table 12: Country of graduation by target group .....................................................47

Table 13: Transferable skills received by country group of graduation ........................54

Table 14: Researchers’ perception of recruitment processes in their home institution by

types of contract ...................................................................................58

Table 15: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by country groups .................59

Table 16: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by career stages ...................60

Table 17: Perception of transparent and merit-based career progression in the home

institution, by types of contract ..............................................................63

Table 18: Perception of positive factors for career progression by target groups .........63

Table 19: Perception of positive factors for career progression by country groups .......64

Table 20: Perception of important skills for future research career ............................67

Table 21: Length of employment at current position (in years) .................................72

Table 22: Number of respondents with > 3 month international mobility experience ....86

Table 23: International mobility with change of employer ........................................87

Table 24: Overview of mobility flow .......................................................................88

Table 25: Overview of mobility flows with employer change .....................................89

Table 26: Overview of mobility flows with employer change : EU versus non-EU moves

..........................................................................................................89

Table 27: Results of “foreign born scientists: mobility patterns for sixteen countries” ..94

Table 28: Contract type versus duration of moves ...................................................97

Table 29: Destination sector versus contract type ...................................................99

Table 30: Number of EU28 doctoral students in each country in 2014 ...................... 104

Table 31: Estimated stock of EU28 born researchers in selected countries in three

different simulation scenarios in the period 2010-2014 ............................ 105

Table 32: Satisfaction with working conditions in current positions by target group ... 129

Table 33: Comparison between working outside the EU and working inside the EU as a

researcher: full set of data of the figure above; negative numbers indicate

higher share of researchers who think that it is better outside the EU than

inside. ............................................................................................... 156

Table 34: Escape, expected and exchange mobility ............................................... 161

Table 35: Escape, expected and exchange mobility ............................................... 162

Table 36: Motives for moving/working outside the EU (TG1), by country .................. 168

Table 37: Motives for moving/working in the EU (TG2), by country of citizenship ...... 169

Table 38: Importance of motives for > 3 month international mobility, main motive per

move…………………................................................................................. 170


move…………………................................................................................. 171


October 2017 216


move for moves with employer change .................................................. 171

Table 41: Expected difficulties to come to Europe for non-EU researchers who have

never worked in Europe before ............................................................. 174

Table 42: Effects of stay abroad for EU researchers, grouped by country of

employment………….. ............................................................................ 177

Table 43: Effects of stay abroad for non-EU researchers, grouped by current country of

employment……….. .............................................................................. 179

Table 44: Role played by the availability of positions and funding for mobility decision

across the different researcher groups ................................................... 185

Table 45: Use of Euraxess Links for applying for a position in % of total (left-hand

panel), and in % of applications (right-hand panel) ................................. 190

Table 46: Awareness of Euraxess Links for researchers who see the availability of

positions as an important motive for, factor in or barrier to mobility vs.

awareness among all respondents ......................................................... 191

Table 47: Types of funding obtained by researchers in the four groups .................... 192

Table 48: Barriers to the use of EU funding by group of researchers ........................ 194

Table 49: Lack of knowledge of EU funding among researchers who indicated that

funding was an important factor or barrier to mobility vs. lack of knowledge

among all respondents ........................................................................ 195

Table 50: Country groups by country of employment of researchers ........................ 229

Table 51: Country groups by country of PhD graduation of researchers.................... 229

Table 53: Country groups by country of citizenship of researchers .......................... 230

Table 53: Researchers with a dual position in current employment .......................... 235

Table 54: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by target groups ................. 238

Table 55: > 3 month international mobility in the last ten years TG1, by country ...... 244

Table 56: > 3 month international mobility in the last ten years TG1, by country of

citizenship………………. ........................................................................... 244



Table 59: Overview of mobility flows from the EU towards other EU countries .......... 246

Table 60: Gender differences in collaboration across target groups .......................... 252

Table 62: Effects of stay abroad for non-EU researchers, grouped by country of stay in

the EU………………… ............................................................................... 254

Table 62: Awareness of Euraxess Links by country ................................................ 256

Table 63: Overview of potential data sources for the estimation of the number of EU

researchers currently working abroad .................................................... 257

Table 64: Stay rates .......................................................................................... 259


October 2017 217

List of Figures

Figure 1: Final conceptual framework for the MORE3 study ..................................13

Figure 2: Framework for definition of indicators in the MORE3 study .....................13

Figure 3: Age structure and target group ...........................................................33

Figure 4: Female representation across target groups .........................................34

Figure 5: Marital status and target group ...........................................................35

Figure 6: Partner status by target group ............................................................36

Figure 7: Fields of science by target group .........................................................37

Figure 8: Differences in gender across fields of science .......................................38

Figure 9: Target groups by researchers’ career stages ........................................39

Figure 10: Differences in gender across career stages ...........................................40

Figure 11: Share of researchers currently in a dual position by target groups and by

current employment country groups ....................................................41

Figure 12: Distribution of second position of current employment in a dual position if

main position is at a university/HEI .....................................................44

Figure 13: PhD graduation and enrolment in PhD programs by target group ............45

Figure 14: Country of graduation among researchers who have obtained or are

enrolled in PhD studies………….. ...........................................................47

Figure 15: Country of employment of researchers by PhD-status............................48

Figure 16: Prevalence of joint degrees across the four target groups ......................49

Figure 17: Joint degrees by country of PhD graduation .........................................50

Figure 18: PhD supervision structures across target groups ...................................51

Figure 19: PhD supervision structures by country of graduation .............................52

Figure 20: Prevalence of training in transferable skills by type of transferable skills,

across all target groups .....................................................................53


by target groups…………… ...................................................................56


by country groups

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57


institution, by target groups ...............................................................61


institution by country groups ..............................................................62

Figure 25: Perception of important skills for future research career ........................65

Figure 26: Perception of important skills for future research career by target groups 66

Figure 27: Confidence in future career prospects by target groups .........................68

Figure 28: Confidence of researchers in future career prospects by career stage and

target group……………. ........................................................................69

Figure 29: Researchers’ countries of employment .................................................71

Figure 30: Distribution of researchers by type of position and target groups ............73

Figure 31: Distribution of researchers by type of position, target groups and gender 74

Figure 32: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by target group ......................75

Figure 33: Researchers’ perception of remuneration, by country group ...................76

Figure 34: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by career stages .....................77

Figure 35: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by type of position ..................78

Figure 36: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by target

groups .............................................................................................79

Figure 37: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by career stage

......................................................................................................80

Figure 38: Perception of remuneration compared to outside academia by country

groups……………………… ........................................................................81

Figure 39: Perception of remuneration compared to researchers in academia by target

groups……………………. .........................................................................82


October 2017 218

Figure 40: Perception of remuneration compared to researchers in academia by career

stages…………………….. .........................................................................83

Figure 41: International mobility with change of employer as share of > 3 month

international mobility, in the past ten years, by country of citizenship. ....88

Figure 42: Map of current location of EU researchers abroad ..................................90

Figure 43: Map of mobility flows from the EU towards non-EU countries ..................91

Figure 44: Map of mobility flows from non-EU countries towards the EU ..................92

Figure 45: Map of mobility flow from non-EU countries towards other non-EU countries

......................................................................................................93

Figure 46: Duration of moves ............................................................................95

Figure 47: Duration of EU- and non-EU-moves .....................................................96

Figure 48: Contract type of moves .....................................................................97

Figure 49: Frequency of EU- and non-EU-moves ..................................................98

Figure 50: Destination sector of moves ...............................................................99

Figure 51: Destination of EU- and non-EU-moves ............................................... 100

Figure 52: Short-term mobility (stock) .............................................................. 106

Figure 53: Short-term mobility per target group ................................................ 107

Figure 54: Short-term mobility in the last ten years across countries .................... 108

Figure 55: Network with Europe ....................................................................... 110

Figure 56: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years: researchers currently working

in Higher Education Institutions ........................................................ 112

Figure 57: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years: across countries ................ 113

Figure 58: Intersectoral mobility by type of sector .............................................. 114

Figure 59: Perception of the effect of intersectoral mobility on recruitment in home

institution………………......................................................................... 115

Figure 60: Perception of the effect of intersectoral mobility on career progression in

home institution……………… ................................................................ 116

Figure 61: Interdisciplinary mobility.................................................................. 118

Figure 62: Interdisciplinary mobility across disciplines and origins ........................ 119

Figure 63: Perception of the effect of interdisciplinary mobility on recruitment in home

institution………………......................................................................... 120

Figure 64: Perception of the effect of interdisciplinary mobility on career progression

in home institution .......................................................................... 121

Figure 65: Types of collaboration ..................................................................... 123

Figure 66: Collaborations as a result of a mobility experience .............................. 124

Figure 67: Satisfaction with working conditions in current position ....................... 128

Figure 68: Individual satisfaction with job and social security attributes total (left

panel) and differences between target groups (right panel) .................. 130

Figure 69: Differences in individual satisfaction with job and social security attributes

between country groups .................................................................. 131

Figure 70: Individual satisfaction with social environment: total (left panel) and

differences between target groups (right panel) .................................. 132

Figure 71: Differences in individual satisfaction with social environment between

country groups………………………. .......................................................... 133

Figure 72: Individual satisfaction at work: total (left panel) and differences between

target groups (right panel) ............................................................... 134

Figure 73: Differences in individual satisfaction at work between country groups.... 135

Figure 74: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by target groups ............. 136

Figure 75: Individual satisfaction with research funding, by country groups ........... 137

Figure 76: Individual satisfaction with research facilities and equipment, by target

group……………………….. ...................................................................... 138

Figure 77: Individual satisfaction with research facilities and equipment, by country

groups…………………… ........................................................................ 139

Figure 78: Individual satisfaction with collaboration with leading scientists, by target

groups……………. .............................................................................. 140

Figure 79: Individual satisfaction with collaboration with leading scientists, by country

groups….………….. ............................................................................ 141


October 2017 219

Figure 80: Individual satisfaction with quality of training and education, by country

groups……………………….. .................................................................... 142


by target groups…………… ................................................................. 144


by country groups

. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….145

Figure 83: Individual satisfaction with research autonomy, by country groups ....... 146

Figure 84: Individual satisfaction with mobility perspectives, by target groups ....... 147

Figure 85: Individual satisfaction with mobility perspectives, by country groups ..... 148

Figure 86: Individual satisfaction with career perspectives, by target groups ......... 149

Figure 87: Individual satisfaction with career perspectives, by country groups ....... 150

Figure 88: Comparative perspective of working outside the EU versus working inside

the EU (TG1; better refers to better outside the EU) ........................... 151

Figure 89: Comparative perspective of working in the EU versus working outside the

EU (TG2; better refers to better in the EU) ......................................... 152


a researcher……………….. ................................................................... 155


an EU researcher abroad, factors which were perceived as similar ........ 159


a non-EU researcher who worked in the EU in the past, factors which were

perceived as similar……………………. ..................................................... 160


.................................................................................................... 163

Figure 94: Escape, expected and exchange mobility, by careerstage ..................... 164


.................................................................................................... 165

Figure 96: Frequency of motives to move .......................................................... 166

Figure 97: Experienced difficulties in the efforts to come back to Europe for European

researchers living abroad (TG1) ........................................................ 172

Figure 98: Experienced difficulties in the efforts to come back to Europe for non-

European researchers having worked in Europe in the past (TG2) ......... 173

Figure 99: Expected difficulties to come to Europe for non-EU researchers who have

never worked in Europe before ......................................................... 174

Figure 100: Experienced barriers to move to selected countries ............................. 175

Figure 101: Effects of stay abroad for EU researchers ........................................... 176

Figure 102: Effects of stay in the EU for non-EU researchers ................................. 178

Figure 103: Effects of long-term stay in a non-EU country for non-EU researchers ... 180

Figure 104: Return mobility of EU researchers who currently work abroad, by country

.................................................................................................... 181

Figure 105: Awareness of Euraxess across researcher groups ................................ 186

Figure 106: Awareness of Euraxess by country of employment of researchers ......... 187

Figure 107: How researchers became aware of Euraxess Links .............................. 188

Figure 108: How researchers became aware of Euraxess Links, by target group and

geographic location ......................................................................... 189

Figure 109: Interest in applying for EU funding across researcher groups ................ 192

Figure 110: Barriers for applying for EU funding................................................... 193

Figure 111: Researchers’ countries of residence ................................................... 231

Figure 112: Researchers’ countries of citizenship ................................................. 232

Figure 113: Distribution of researchers by gender and target group ....................... 233

Figure 114: Distribution of researchers across career stages (R1 to R4), by countries

.................................................................................................... 234

Figure 115: Distribution of researchers by gender and career stage........................ 235

Figure 116: Confidence in future career prospects by country groups ..................... 236

Figure 117: Distribution of target groups across levels of confidence in future career

prospects…………………… ..................................................................... 237


October 2017 220

Figure 118: Contractual situation of researchers by target groups .......................... 239

Figure 119: Contractual situation of researchers by country groups ........................ 240

Figure 120: Researchers’ perception of remuneration, by gender ........................... 240

Figure 121: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by dual positions ................... 241

Figure 122: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by type of contract ................ 242

Figure 123: > 3 month international mobility, in the last ten years, by country of

employer…………………… ..................................................................... 243

Figure 124: Frequency of international travel to attend conferences or events across

target groups…………………… ............................................................... 247

Figure 125: Frequency of international travel for study visits across target groups ... 248

Figure 126: Frequency of international travel for meetings with supervisors, partners,

and/or collaborators across target groups .......................................... 249

Figure 127: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years ......................................... 250

Figure 128: Interdisciplinary collaboration (upper panel), intersectoral collaboration

(middle panel) and international collaboration (lower panel) across

countries ....................................................................................... 251

Figure 129: Individual satisfaction with quality of training and education, by target

groups…………………….. ...................................................................... 253

Figure 130: Individual satisfaction with research autonomy, by target groups ......... 253

Figure 131: Perception of EU attractiveness by EU researchers abroad grouped by their

current country of employment......................................................... 254

Figure 132: Perception of EU attractiveness by non-EU researchers who have been

mobile to the EU grouped by their current country of employment ........ 255


October 2017 221

Annexes


October 2017 222

1. Questionnaire

Cf. separate document


October 2017 223

2. Definitions

Research careers

According to the definitions given in the European Commission’s communication the

different stages are sector-neutral (applicable to companies, NGO’s, research institutes,

research universities or universities of applied sciences) and are characterised as

follows131:

A first stage researcher (R1) will:

“Carry out research under supervision;

Have the ambition to develop knowledge of research methodologies and discipline;

Have demonstrated a good understanding of a field of study;

Have demonstrated the ability to produce data under supervision;

Be capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas

and

Be able to explain the outcome of research and value thereof to research

colleagues.”

Recognised researchers (R2) are doctorate holders or researchers with an equivalent

level of experience and competence who have not yet established a significant level of

independence. In addition to the characteristics assigned to the profile of a first stage

researcher a recognised researcher:

“Has demonstrated a systematic understanding of a field of study and mastery of

research associated with that field

Has demonstrated the ability to conceive, design, implement and adapt a

substantial program of research with integrity

Has made a contribution through original research that extends the frontier of

knowledge by developing a substantial body of work, innovation or application. This

could merit national or international refereed publication or patent.

Demonstrates critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas.

Can communicate with his peers - be able to explain the outcome of his research

and value thereof to the research community.

Takes ownership for and manages own career progression, sets realistic and

achievable career goals, identifies and develops ways to improve employability.

Co-authors papers at workshop and conferences.”

An established Researcher (R3) has developed a level of independence and, in

addition to the characteristics assigned to the profile of a recognised researcher:

“Has an established reputation based on research excellence in his field.

Makes a positive contribution to the development of knowledge, research and

development through co-operations and collaborations.

Identifies research problems and opportunities within his area of expertise

Identifies appropriate research methodologies and approaches.

Conducts research independently which advances a research agenda.

Can take the lead in executing collaborative research projects in cooperation with

colleagues and project partners.


and career paths of researchers. FINAL REPORT (deliverable 8)


October 2017 224

Publishes papers as lead author, organises workshops or conference sessions.”

A leading researcher (R4) leads research in his area or field. He/she leads a team or a

research group or is head of an industry R&D laboratory. “In particular disciplines as an

exception, leading researchers may include individuals who operate as lone researchers.”

(European Commission 2011, p. 11). A leading researcher, in addition to the

characteristics assigned to the profile of an established researcher:

“Has an international reputation based on research excellence in their field.

Demonstrates critical judgment in the identification and execution of research

activities.

Makes a substantial contribution (breakthroughs) to their research field or spanning

multiple areas.

Develops a strategic vision on the future of the research field.

Recognises the broader implications and applications of their research.

Publishes and presents influential papers and books, serves on workshop and

conference organizing committees and delivers invited talks”.

As this classification is not known from formal data sources on researchers, we

introduce the classification by means of self-selection of the researchers in the

surveys.


October 2017 225

3. Policy-driven developments in concepts of career paths and working conditions

Recent developments in the R&D policy context in Europe have necessitated the revision

of certain concepts about career paths and working conditions. In the following sections,

we discuss the concepts of combined/part-time researcher positions, dual careers or

career restarts, the measurement of researchers’ achievements and open science in the

3Os framework. In the development of the questionnaire for the MORE3 EU HE survey

and MORE3 Global survey, we have taken into account each of these concepts to the

extent relevant and complementary to what is already being monitored in other studies

(such as the DG EAC study “Research Careers in Europe”, cf. infra). This also means that

these concepts are new when compared to MORE2 and analysed for the first time in this

context.

Combined/part-time researcher positions

One increasingly recognised means to transfer knowledge is a combined, part-time

research position. The adjunct position can be made on time-bank terms i.e. “a part-

time position defined by a certain % of full position per year allowing the work-load to be

flexibly distributed in short or long periods over the year according to the need” (ESF,

2013). The combined/part-time research position has proven effective for knowledge

transfer, networking and research collaboration. An example of this is the Norwegian

‘professor 2’ 20% combined/part-time positions scheme. The following suggestions were

formulated by ESF (2013) concerning combined/part-time research positions:

- “Should be introduced as part of ordinary employment conditions as well as in

scholarships and grants (nationally and in EU-instruments);

- Could be established at all levels in the hierarchy;

- Might be suitable for implementation of the COM-proposed ERA-Chairs (attracting

excellent researchers to build scientific quality in low-performing institutions);

- Might be suitable to counteract brain drain from less attractive areas by keeping them

connected and cooperating.”

Given the growing importance of this concept, we have further elaborated the

questionnaire for the MORE3 EU HE survey in this direction. Whereas the MORE2 study

provided basic information on inter-sectoral dual positions, defined as a combined

position between academia and another sector, we now allow for a more detailed

approach to this concept. The MORE3 questionnaire also covers the share in each

position, the possibility of accumulating multiple positions with academia and if so, the

country of the academic positions. .

Dual careers/restart of careers

Alternative career paths, including career breaks, restart of careers or implications of

dual careers, have gained attention in studies on the topic as well as in the European

policy context. In a study managed by the European Commission, DG Education and

Culture, these three topic regarding “Research Careers in Europe” were addressed:

restart of careers, perception (and promotion) of researcher’s careers and dual careers132.

Dual careers are defined as living in couple where both life partners pursue a career

or seek jobs which are highly demanding and strongly oriented at career

progression, and at least one of them is a researcher.

132 The final study report is available at http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/research-careers-in-europe-

pbNC0614200/.

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/research-careers-in-europe-pbNC0614200/

http://bookshop.europa.eu/en/research-careers-in-europe-pbNC0614200/


October 2017 226

A career break is defined as a period away from what someone considers to be

his/her main career, including a situation in which a researcher temporarily works

in a non-research position either within or outside of an academic institution.

Concerning dual careers, the study measured for example the number of researchers

who are in a “dual-career couple” relationship: almost 39% of respondents were in this

situation. Around 66% of researchers being in this kind of dual-career relationship

reported dual-career problems affecting their professional and/or personal lives. These

outcomes point at a very important field of research to better understand career paths

and career decisions of researchers.

In relation to career breaks, the study showed that around 35% of researchers

experienced a career break or were planning to take one in the near future. For these

researchers, childcare commitments were the major motivation (40%), followed by a lack

of positions (34%) and end of contracts (33%).

Given this recent and detailed study on this topic, the MORE3 study did not explicitly

focus on motives for and details regarding these concepts. The questionnaire did include

a question (Q7) on whether or not the respondent’s partner is also working as a

researcher, thus allowing us to measure accurately (representative at country level) the

share of researchers in a dual-career relationship.

Measurement of researchers’ achievements

Overall, new concepts of mobility bring with them the need for new evaluation measures

for researchers’ achievements. ESF (2013) has formulated some recommendations for

international, inter-sectoral, interdisciplinary as well as virtual mobility. Their cross-

cutting recommendations are:

“Providing standardised CV in publicly available information systems stating

different forms of mobility;

Recognising non-academic achievements in peer review;

Normalising a researcher’s achievements by normalizing the experience to the time

actually spent in research.”

In the MORE2 study, researchers’ achievements were not taken into account. In

MORE3 we have addressed the growing importance thereof by including questions

on:

The extent to which specific experiences or skills are appreciated for

recruitment and career progression (e.g. interdisciplinary mobility or

collaboration, transferable skills, etc.).

Competitive funding at European or national level and the timing thereof.

Open Innovation, Open Science, Openness to the World

To introduce the 3O’s in the MORE3 study, existing questions were elaborated and new

questions developed. For example:

Skills training: introduction of the categories ‘innovative digital skills’ and

‘collaboration with citizens, government and broader society’

Recruitment and career progress: introduction of a question on how ‘alternative’

skills and outputs are taken into account, namely ‘alternative forms of research

output’ (e.g. project reports, grant writing, the development and maintenance of

data infrastructure, organisation of research events/conferences, etc.),

‘intersectoral mobility’, ‘interdisciplinary mobility’, ‘international mobility’ and

‘transferable skills’.

Collaboration: introduction of ‘non-researchers’ in the list of potential collaboration

partner.


October 2017 227

4. Additional info on sampling and survey implementation

Sampling

In tandem with the development of the online survey questionnaire, the identification of

potential respondents was also in progress. Therefore, the research team worked in close

collaboration with the University of Wolverhampton, who specialises in complex web-

based data collection and analysis processes.

The entire sampling approach can be characterised by ‘convenience’ sampling. We used a

web-based method to collect large samples of researchers’ emails. This method has been

previously used under MORE1 and MORE2 to generate tens of thousands of academics’

email addresses for online surveying, and so it is known to work and to give good results.

The first step of the method is to collect a large sample of the URLs of academics’

home pages. This is achieved through Bing advanced site-specific searches of a list

of thousands university web sites for keywords like “home page”, “homepage”,

“CV” or “Curriculum Vitae”, as well as non-English variations, such as “página

principal”. The searches are conducted twice, once for normal HTML pages and once

for PDF files, since many academics post CVs online in PDF format. These searches

can be targeted at academics with particular profiles by adding appropriate

keywords. For example, to target academics that have moved to the US, the

searches would be run with names of prominent US universities as additional

keywords. This method is imperfect as it can match conferences listed in CVs

instead of previous employment histories but in a previous study it had a

reasonable success rate. These searches will be submitted via automatically by the

commercial Bing API, paid through by the Microsoft Cognitive Services framework.

For countries with small university websites or low numbers of email addresses

found, the above will be supplemented by web crawling of university websites.

The second step is to automatically download all the home pages and CVs identified

from the searches and to automatically extract email addresses from them. The

limitation of this step is that some academics omit or obscure their email address,

but the method still gives reasonable results. The main limitation of this method is

that it might under-represent universities that have a standard home page format

for all of their academics which does not include an email address or that obscures

their email address.

As mentioned previously, the survey particularly targets four groups of researchers:

(1) EU researchers currently working outside the EU

(2) Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past

(3) Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad, but not in the EU

(4) Non-EU researchers who have not worked abroad

A blanket approach was used to obtain this sample by surveying as many researchers as

possible. Although it would be possible to scan CVs for mentions of relevant countries,

researchers do not necessarily state their previous occupations on their home page so we

will adopt the inclusive approach of surveying all email addresses that we can find.

On top of this contact generation approach, the survey was announced to the researchers

through various means. On the Euraxess and Marie Curie websites, an information

section about the survey and its objectives and a link to the online survey was added. In

addition, the survey was announced in the communities of EU researchers abroad, like

the ones that can be accessed through the EU centres of excellence around the world.

This combined approach has worked well in the MORE1 and MORE2 study.


October 2017 228

Survey implementation

After the data collection process described above, the email addresses were inputted into

the online survey tool and the survey is launched automatically. In terms of follow-up, a

number of precautions were taken in order to maximize the output:

The online tool offers the possibility of generating automatic reminder emails for

those respondents who have not yet participated in the survey. The research team

followed up response and consequently decided on the optimal timing for sending

out reminder emails.

The respondents also received an email address where they were able to address

any questions or comments in relation to the questionnaire. One of the team

members of Task 2 was responsible for responding to these emails and provided

clarifications or assistance when needed on a daily basis.

The response evolution was followed ‘on the foot’ in order to take corrective

measures if/when needed.

Finally, also “snowballing” was used as an additional source to increase the survey

sample. All respondents of the survey had the opportunity to forward the survey link to

people potentially interested in the survey. The sampling method generated far more

emails than was necessary. However, a large sample set is required in order to balance

the size of the populations we are interested in, and to have a ‘reserve’ in case response

rates were not as expected. Response rates are lower for some types of country due to

the low numbers of relevant researchers and the limited web presence of research

institutions in some research areas.


October 2017 229

5. Overview table country group allocation

Table 50: Country groups by country of employment of researchers

Region Countries Total TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Anglo Saxon

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, United States

986 288 127 95 476

US United States 236 91 17 15 113

Non-EU OECD

Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Turkey, United States

1,193 350 164 118 561

BRICS Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa 320 40 59 36 185

Other

Akrotiri, Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus,

Cameroon, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Holy See (Vatican City), Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan,

Vietnam

214 27 40 24 123

Table 51: Country groups by country of PhD graduation of researchers


Anglo Saxon Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa,

United States, Ireland, United Kingdom 885 167 130 108 480


EU and

associated countries

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

462 298 65 23 76

Non-EU OECD


837 104 130 110 493


Other

Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Belarus, Botswana, Cameroon, Colombia, Cuba Ecuador, Egypt, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia,

Panama, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Ukraine, Venezuela

90 4 17 9 60


October 2017 230

Table 52: Country groups by country of citizenship of researchers


Anglo Saxon

Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, United States, Ireland and United Kingdom

733 89 120 83 441


EU and associated countries

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Slovenia, Sweden,

Switzerland, United Kingdom

417 417 0 0 0

Non-EU

OECD


793 0 153 112 528


Other

Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, Cameroon, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Malawi, Malaysia, Morocco,

Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru,

Philippines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia and Montenegro, Singapore, Sudan, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe

232 0 47 33 152


October 2017 231

6. Additional graphs and tables chapter 5

Figure 111: Researchers’ countries of residence


Notes: - Only countries where more than 2 respondents indicated to use it for residence purposes.

- Based on question 4: “What is your country of residence?” - (n=1,727)

0

100

200

300

Austra

l ia

Unite

d State

s

Can

ada

New Ze

alan

dBra

zil

South

Afri

ca

Colom

bia

Japan

Mexic

o

Chil

e

Russi

a

Turke

y

Israel

Argent

ina

Indi

a

Chin

a

Singap

ore

Kore

a, Sout

h

Thail

and

Ukrain

e

Indo

nesia Ita

ly

Ecua

dor

Nether

land

s

Alger

ia

Mala

ysia

Egyp

t

Tunisia

Philip

pines

Hong

Kong

Franc

e

Bangl

adesh


October 2017 232

Figure 112: Researchers’ countries of citizenship

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Only countries where more than 2 researchers indicated it as their county of citizenship. In

case of double citizenships just one country is included in the values. - Based on question 5: ““What is your country of citizenship?” - (n=1,727)

0

50

100

150

200

Australia

Can

ada

United

State

s

Brazil

New Ze

aland

Unite

d King

dom

Colombia

Sout

h Afric

a

Russi

aIta

ly

Ger

many

Turk

ey

Mex

ico

Franc

eChile

India

Spain

Argent

ina

Israel

Nether

land

s

Chin

a

Belg

ium

Japa

n

Irela

nd

Austria

Switz

erland

Poland

Thaila

nd

Portu

gal

Gre

ece

Ukrain

e

Indone

s ia

Korea

, Sou

th

Malay

sia

Zimbabw

eIra

n

Algeria

Tunisia

Roman

ia

Philip

pines

Niger

ia

Gha

na

Egyp

t

Singapo

re

Ecua

dor

Denm

ark

Serb

ia and

Mon

teneg

ro

Norway

Bang

lades

h


October 2017 233

Figure 113: Distribution of researchers by gender and target group


- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 2: “What is your gender”

23.9

13.0

9.8

53.4

24.3

16.7

10.7

48.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Female Male

TG1 TG2

TG3 TG4


October 2017 234

Figure 114: Distribution of researchers across career stages (R1 to R4), by countries

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 22 “What is your country of current employment?” and question 10: “In

which career stage would you currently situate yourself?” - Only countries where n > 30 included - (n= 1,587)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

India

Sout

h Afri

ca

Argen

tina

New

Zeala

nd

Colombia

Braz

il

Austra

liaChile

Turke

y

Is rael

Can

ada

Mexic

o

Russia

Unite

d State

s

Japan




October 2017 235

Figure 115: Distribution of researchers by gender and career stage

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 2 “What is your gender?” and question 10: “In which career stage would

you currently situate yourself?” - (n= 1,727)

Table 53: Researchers with a dual position in current employment

Total Per gender Per current career stage

2017

12.4% F: 11.8% R1: 13.9%

M: 12.8% R2: 11.9%

R3: 10.8%

R4: 14.5%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Note: - Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727)

12.3

19.3

39.0

29.3

19.1

24.7

39.3

16.9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female




October 2017 236

Figure 116: Confidence in future career prospects by country groups


Notes: - (n= 1,727) - Based on question 36: “Overall, how confident do you feel about the future prospects for your

research career?”

26.7

52.1

17.1

4.1

31.8

50.8

14.8

2.5

26.6

51.6

17.6

4.2

24.7

51.3

20.0

4.1

30.8

52.3

13.1

3.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


V ery confident Somewhat confident

Lack confident Very much lack confident


October 2017 237

Figure 117: Distribution of target groups across levels of confidence in future career

prospects


- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869) - Based on question 36: “Overall, how confident do you feel about the future prospects for your

research career?”

22.3

16.0

9.7

51.9

23.5

15.0

12.0

49.4

28.5

14.2

6.6

50.7

25.4

16.9

8.5

49.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Very confident Somewhat confident Lack confident Very much lack confident






October 2017 238

Table 54: Perception of positive factors for recruitment by target groups




62.1% 62.6% 61.9% 63.6% 61.5% 10.6% 7.6% 9.3% 9.7% 12.7%

International mobility 73% 73.5% 80.8% 72.3% 70.5% 5.5% 3.5% 6.6% 5.7% 6.1%

Intersectoral mobility 43.1% 39.1% 41.4% 43.2% 45.6% 10.9% 10.4% 14.0% 8.1% 10.7%

Research output 64.5% 65.3% 65.5% 64.8% 63.7% 7.6% 6.4% 8.2% 6.2% 8.4%



- TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=361) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=236) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries

(n=164) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=751) - Only researchers whose main (or only) position is at a university or in the HEI sector.

- Share of researchers agreeing that the factors are regarded as positive or negative for recruitment in their home institution. Devoid of the share of researchers indicating that the factor is not relevant.

- Based on question 33: “In your experience would you say that the following factors are regarded as positive or negative factors for recruitment in your home institution?”

- (n=1,363-1,440)


October 2017 239


Figure 118: Contractual situation of researchers by target groups


- Total: Researchers currently working outside the EU (n=1,727) - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have worked abroad but not in the EU (n=178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n=869)

- Based on question 23: “Type of contract”

51.0

44.8

4.2

66.8

26.5

6.7

70.8

22.2

7.0

65.9

25.7

8.4

62.9

30.2

7.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4 Total

Permanent/open-ended contract Fixed term contract

No contract or self-employed


October 2017 240

Figure 119: Contractual situation of researchers by country groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 23: “Type of contract” - (n=1,648)

Figure 120: Researchers’ perception of remuneration, by gender


into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)? I consider myself

to be...” and question 2 “What is your gender?” - (n=1,727)

62.6

29.4

8.0

55.9

40.1

4.1

62.4

30.2

7.4

64.2

28.7

7.1

63.2

32.1

4.8

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Permanent/open-ended contract Fixed term contract

No contract or self-employed

6.6

19.6

50.6

23.2

7.9

24.7

43.7

23.7

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Male Female




October 2017 241

Figure 121: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by dual positions


into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)?I consider myself

to be...” and question 16 “Are you currently in a so-called “dual position” whereby you are employed as a researcher in more than one institution/organisation at the same time?”

- (n=1,727)

6.6

20.7

48.6

24.1

10.7

28.5

42.5

18.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

No Yes




October 2017 242

Figure 122: Researchers’ perception of remuneration by type of contract


into account a second income, or if applicable, the income of your partner)? I consider myself

to be...” and question 23 “Type of contract” - (n=1,648)

4.6

17.0

50.7

27.7

7.4

27.6

47.3

17.7

27.8

40.0

22.6

9.6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Permanent/open-ended contract Fixed term contract No contract or sel f-employed




October 2017 243


7.1.1.1 Mobility patterns

International long term mobility > 3 months (in the past 10 years)

The largest number of responses indicating that they have done this type of mobility is

found among those who currently work in Anglo-Saxon countries: Australia (n = 162),

US (n= 123), Canada (n = 108), New Zealand (n = 83). The list of top countries in

number of respondents is complemented with Japan (n = 58) and Brazil (n = 54). Figure

123 provides an overview of the number of respondents that have been mobile for more

than three months per country.

Figure 123: > 3 month international mobility, in the last ten years, by country of employer


- Based on question 37 “After gaining you highest education qualification (PhD or other), how would you typify your international mobility experience?”

- (n = 655) - Only considers countries where 30 or more researchers are currently employed.

0

50

100

150

Nu

mb

er

of

rese

arc

he

rs

Colom

bia

South

Afri

ca

Brazil

Japa

n

New

Zea

land

Can

ada

Unite

d Sta

tes

Austra

lia





October 2017 244

Table 55: > 3 month international mobility in the last ten years TG1, by country

Country of current employment n

Australia 94

United States 91

Canada 48

Japan 48

New Zealand 44

Brazil 13

Chile 12

China 11

South Africa 11

Singapore 10

Other 35

Total 417


would you typify your international mobility experience?” and question 22 “What is your country of current employment?”

- Only considers countries where 10 or more researchers are currently employed.

Table 56: > 3 month international mobility in the last ten years TG1, by country of citizenship

Country of citizenship n

United Kingdom 74

Germany 55

Italy 55

France 52

Spain 34

Netherlands 23

Belgium 19

Ireland 15

Austria 14

Poland 13

Switzerland 13

Greece 11

Portugal 11

Other 28

Total 417


would you typify your international mobility experience?” and question 5 “What is your country of citizenship”.

- Only considers countries where 10 or more researchers have their citizenship.


October 2017 245



Australia 42

Canada 34

Brazil 27

New Zealand 25

Colombia 20

United States 17

Mexico 13

Other 85

Total 263


would you typify your international mobility experience?” and question 22 “What is your

country of current employment?” - Only considers countries where 10 or more researchers are currently employed.



Australia 26

Canada 26

United States 15

Brazil 14

New Zealand 14

South Africa 14

Mexico 10

Other 59

Total 178


would you typify your international mobility experience?” and question 22 “What is your country of current employment?”

- Only considers countries where 10 or more researchers are currently employed.

International long term mobility > 3 months more than 10 years ago

211 respondents indicated that they had been mobile for more than 3 months but that

this was more than 10 years ago. In this category, the largest number of respondents

originate from Australia (41) and Canada (40). Of these 211 researchers, 79% were

mobile towards the EU more than 10 years ago133.

Non-mobility

658 respondents indicated that they had not been mobile for more than 3 months in the

past 10 years. The countries from which a largest number of non-mobile respondents

originate are Australia (94), the United States (87), Canada (74) and Brazil (51).

133 Based on question 69 “Have you been mobile more than 10 years ago?”


October 2017 246

Table 59: Overview of mobility flows from the EU towards other EU countries

Country n

United Kingdom 46

Germany 24

France 23

Spain 13

Belgium 10

Netherlands 10

Austria 8

Italy 8

Switzerland 8

Sweden 7

Denmark 6

Finland 4

Greece 3

Portugal 3

Norway 2

Poland 2

Romania 2

Iceland 1

Ireland 1

Latvia 1

Lithuania 1

Slovenia 1

Total 184


- Counts of moves from EU countries towards other EU countries by EU researchers who currently work outside the EU.

- Based on question 39 ”Please indicate the 3 most recent international steps/moves taken in the last 10 years of your research career?”

- With “moves” defined as moves of three months or more during the last ten years to another country than the country of citizenship of the researcher.

- (n = 184) - Only flows of 3 moves or more are presented

7.1.3 Short travel for conferences, meetings and visits

Conferences

Among the sample of researchers currently working outside the EU, 93% indicated to

have undertaken a work-related international travel for conferences. Non-European

researchers that have never been mobile (TG4) are less likely to do international travels

to attend conferences than the rest of the researchers: 12% of them does not do this

type of move compared to shares below 4% for the rest of the target groups. Among the

rest of the target groups (TG1, TG2 and TG3) no large differences are found: only a small

minority declare that never does this type of move.


October 2017 247

Figure 124: Frequency of international travel to attend conferences or events across

target groups


Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n = 263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries (n =

178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n = 869) - Based on question 80 “What types of work-related international travel have you undertaken

during your research career?

Study visits

Among the researchers currently working outside the EU, 78% indicated to have

undertaken a work-related international travel for study visits, research visits and/or

fieldwork.

With respect to this type of international travels, the situation across groups is more

heterogeneous (see Figure 125) than in the case of conferences. Non-European mobile

researchers with (TG2) and those without a previous working experience in Europe (TG3)

present a similar pattern with respect to moving abroad for short study visits: only 11%

of this type of researchers declare to have never done this type of move, compared to

19% of the European researchers working outside Europe and 30% of the non-European

non-mobile researchers. On the contrary, the situation is more homogeneous when

looking at the shares of researchers who do this type of move rather frequently: the

shares range from 12% for non-European researchers with working experience in other

non-EU countries to 6% for those who have never been long-term mobile.

10.3

55.6

33.1

1.0

15.6

58.9

22.8

2.7

16.9

55.6

24.2

3.4

28.2

43.8

15.5

12.4

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Rarely Sometimes

Often Never


October 2017 248

Figure 125: Frequency of international travel for study visits across target groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n = 263)

- TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries (n = 178)

- TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n = 869)

- Based on question 80 “What types of work-related international travel have you undertaken during your research career?

Meetings with supervisors, partners, and/or collaborators

76% of the researchers currently working outside the EU indicated to have undertaken a

work-related international travel for meetings with supervisors/partners/collaborators.

15% EU researchers working outside Europe (TG1) declare that they have never gone to

another country to have meetings with supervisors, partners, and/or collaborators. This

share is similar to that of non-European mobile researchers who have never done so.

Non-mobile researchers (TG4) are the least inclined to do this type of move, in a similar

way to other types of short-term mobility presented above.

34.8

38.4

9.1

17.7

33.1

46.8

8.7

11.4

40.4

36.0

11.8

11.8

38.6

26.4

5.6

29.5

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Rarely Sometimes

Often Never


October 2017 249

Figure 126: Frequency of international travel for meetings with supervisors, partners,

and/or collaborators across target groups

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417)

- TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n = 263) - TG3: Non-EU researchers who have not worked in the EU, but in other non-EU countries (n =

178) - TG4: Non-EU researchers who have never worked abroad (n = 869) - Based on question 80 “What types of work-related international travel have you undertaken

during your research career?

27.8

35.0

22.5

14.6

27.0

40.7

16.7

15.6

36.0

32.6

13.5

18.0

32.3

24.9

10.1

32.7

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

TG1 TG2 TG3 TG4

Rarely Sometimes

Often Never


October 2017 250

7.2 Intersectoral mobility

Figure 127: Intersectoral mobility in the last ten years

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - The figure also reflects those that are employed in dual positions. - Based on Question 17 “What is your current sector of employment as a researcher?”, Question

18 “You are currently in dual position whereby you are employed in more than one institution/organisation at the same time. Can you indicate the sector of your 2 main research positions?” (only the main position is considered in the Figure), and Question 20 “Apart from your current sector(s) of employment, in which other sector(s) have you worked (as a researcher) during the last ten years (2007-2017)?”

- (n=1,727)

22.220.4 20.5

24.2 23.2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%







October 2017 251

7.3 Interdisciplinary mobility

Figure 128: Interdisciplinary collaboration (upper panel), intersectoral collaboration (middle panel) and international collaboration (lower panel) across

countries

Notes: - Based on question 57 and question 68 “Please indicate with whom you collaborate in your

research. Which of these collaborations was the result of a previous mobility experience?” - (n=893)

17.420.3

8.4

17.4

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Anglo-saxon countries US BRICS Non-EU OECD

9.9 9.7

2.5

9.5

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


23.426.7

10.6

23.3

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



October 2017 252

7.4 Collaboration

Table 60: Gender differences in collaboration across target groups

Male Female Difference

TG1

Researchers in other disciplines 59.7% 58.5% 1.1%

Researchers in another sector 31.2% 29.3% 2.0%

Researchers from another country 81.0% 75.6% 5.4%

TG2

Researchers in other disciplines 62.6% 62.9% -0.3%

Researchers in another sector 31.6% 24.7% 6.9%

Researchers from another country 79.3% 65.2% 14.1%

Source: MORE3 Global survey (2017) Notes: - TG1: EU researchers currently working outside the EU (n=417) - TG2: Non-EU researchers who have worked in the EU in the past (n=263) - Based on question 2 “Gender”, question 57 and question 68 “Please indicate with whom you

collaborate in your research. Which of these collaborations was the result of a previous mobility experience?”

- (n=680: 417 in TG1, 263 in TG2)


October 2017 253


Figure 129: Individual satisfaction with quality of training and education, by target groups



Figure 130: Individual satisfaction with research autonomy, by target groups



- (n=1,649)

26.4

73.6

25.5

74.5

24.1

75.9

28.7

71.3

27.0

73.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



13.5

86.5

9.7

90.3

13.7

86.3

10.3

89.7

16.0

84.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




October 2017 254

Figure 131: Perception of EU attractiveness by EU researchers abroad grouped by their

current country of employment

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - Only EU researchers who work outside the EU, grouped by their current country of

employment. - Based on question 50: “How does working in … compare to working as a researcher in Europe?

Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in … than in Europe.” - (n= 415)

Table 61: Effects of stay abroad for non-EU researchers, grouped by country of stay in the EU

North South West East







Quality of life 0.75 0.69 0.53 1.11



Recognition 1.21 0.87 0.95 1.10

Research Funding 0.87 0.70 0.58 1.11


Progression in salary 0.64 0.51 0.38 0.56 Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017)

Notes: - Only non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, grouped by their country of stay in

the EU. - Based on question 61: “Please indicate below how your stay in Europe has influenced the

following factors.” - (n= 195-259)


Autonomy

Career path

Commercialisation of results

Facilities

Industry

Job security

Working with leading scientist

MobilityPension

Position

qualityl

Remuneration

Research

Social security

Teaching

Training

-75

-50

-25

0

25

50

75


BRICS Others

USA


October 2017 255

Figure 132: Perception of EU attractiveness by non-EU researchers who have been

mobile to the EU grouped by their current country of employment

Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - Only non-EU researchers who have been mobile to the EU, grouped by their current country of

employment. - Based on question 60: “How does working as a researcher in Europe compare to your current

employment in …? Please indicate if something is worse, similar or better in Europe than in ...” - (n= 261)

Administrative burdenAutonomy

Career path

Commercialisation of results

Facilities

Industry

Job security

Working with leading scientist

MobilityPension

Political situation

Position

qualityl

Remuneration

Research

Social security

Teaching

Training

-50

-25

0

25

50

7584.2105255127


BRICS Others


October 2017 256

Table 62: Awareness of Euraxess Links by country

Aware Not Aware Observation

Akrotiri 0.0% 100.0% 1

Algeria 40.0% 60.0% 5

Argentina 5.3% 94.7% 38

Australia 4.4% 95.6% 297

Bangladesh 50.0% 50.0% 2

Belarus 0.0% 100.0% 2

Brazil 49.6% 50.4% 119

Cameroon 100.0% 0.0% 1

Canada 9.5% 90.5% 222

Chile 5.2% 94.8% 58

China 90.0% 10.0% 30

Colombia 12.4% 87.7% 81

Ecuador 0.0% 100.0% 5

Egypt 0.0% 100.0% 4

Ethiopia 0.0% 100.0% 1

Ghana 0.0% 100.0% 1

Holy See (Vatican City) 0.0% 100.0% 1

Hong Kong 100.0% 0.0% 3

India 100.0% 0.0% 31

Indonesia 71.4% 28.6% 7

Israel 5.1% 94.9% 39

Japan 87.0% 13.0% 69

Kazakhstan 0.0% 100.0% 2

Kenya 0.0% 100.0% 1

Korea, South 20.0% 80.0% 15

Malaysia 100.0% 0.0% 5

Mexico 8.2% 91.8% 61

New Zealand 2.8% 97.2% 144

Nigeria 0.0% 100.0% 1

Panama 0.0% 100.0% 1

Peru 0.0% 100.0% 2

Philippines 100.0% 0.0% 3

Russia 13.2% 86.8% 53

Saudi Arabia 0.0% 100.0% 1

Senegal 0.0% 100.0% 1

Serbia and Montenegro 100.0% 0.0% 1

Singapore 66.7% 33.3% 15

South Africa 5.8% 94.3% 87

Sudan 0.0% 100.0% 1

Taiwan 50.0% 50.0% 2

Thailand 100.0% 0.0% 10

Tunisia 66.7% 33.3% 3

Turkey 7.7% 92.3% 52

Ukraine 22.2% 77.8% 9

United States 37.3% 62.7% 236

Uruguay 0.0% 100.0% 1

Uzbekistan 50.0% 50.0% 2

Vietnam 100.0% 0.0% 1 Source: MORE3 Global Survey (2017) Notes: - Based on question 81: “Do you know Euraxess Links?” - (n=1,727)


October 2017 257

Table 63: Overview of potential data sources for the estimation of the number of EU

researchers currently working abroad

Source type of data Level of aggregationYears

covered

Share of international students

enrolled by country of origin

Master’s and doctoral or equivalent

level (ISCED2011 levels 7 and 8) by

country of origin

2013/2014 US, CA, JP, KR, AU, NZ, CL

Number of mobile students by

country of destination


level (ISCED2011 levels 7 and 8)

2013/2014 US, CA, RU, JP, KR, AU, NZ, BR, CL

Share of mobile students by

country of destination


level (ISCED2011 levels 7 and 8) 2013/2014 US, CA,JP, KR, AU, NZ, CL

Share of international graduates Total tertiary education (ISCED2011

levels 5 to 8) 2013/2014

International graduates by origin

Doctoral graduates (isced2011 level

8) 2013/2014 CA, AU, NZ, CL

Enrolment of international

students by origin

Doctoral candidates (isced2011 level

8) 2013/2014 CA, RU, JP, KR, AU, NZ, BR, CL

Enrolment of international

students by origin

Total tertiary education (ISCED2011

levels 5 to 8)

2013/2014 US,CA, RU, JP, KR, AU, NZ, BR, CL, ZA

OECD Foreign/international

students enrolled

Advanced research programmes

(ISCED1997 level 6)

2007-2012 CA, JP, KR, AU, NZ, BR, CL

OECD Foreign/international

students enrolled


level 5&6)

2007-2012 US,CA, RU, JP, KR, AU, NZ, BR, CL, ZA

New entrants in doctoral studies

by area of origin (rest of the world,

or excluding mobile students)

Doctoral candidates (isced2011 level

8) 2005, 2010,

2011,2012, 2013

Inflows of foreign population by

nationality

--

2000-2013

Stock of foreign labour by

nationality

--

2000-2013

Status changes in international

students

--

2000-2013

Professional, scientific and

technical activities (M)

(Employment by activities and

status)

Professional acivities

Annual (2003-

2013)

Immigrants by citizenship and age,

level of education


(ISCED1997 level 6) 2000 US,CA, NZ,

Immigrants by citizenship and age,

level of education


level 5&6) 2000 US,CA, JP, AU, NZ,

Immigrants by detailed occupation

Occoupation

2000 US,CA, AU, NZ,

Database on immigrants


level 5&6)

2010/11 US,CA, RU, JP, AU, NZ, BR, CL, AR, ZA

OECD


October 2017 258

Source type of data Level of aggregationYears

covered

ilostat

Employment by occupation, total

and migrants 2000-2015

ilostat

Working-age population by sex

and education, total and migrants 2000-2015

UNSD Demographic statistics United

Nations Statistics Division (UNSD)

Foreign population (non-citizens)

15 years of age or over by country

of citizenship, educational

attainment and sex


(ISCED1997 level 6)

2010.2011 RU, CN, BR,

United Nations Statistics Division

(UNSD)

Foreign-born population 15 years

of age or over by country/area of

birth, educational attainment and

sex


(ISCED1997 level 6)

2010 SG, BR, AR

United Nations Populations Dividsion -

International MigrationInternational migrant stock

By destination and origin

1990. 1995.

2000. 2005.

2010 .2015

ScienceEurope Top pairs of collaboration of

Europe countries with countries

outside Europe.

Patterns of co-authorships between

EU countries and countries in the

rest of the world on the basis of

sources (articles, books, etc) covered

by SCOPUS

Institute of International Education

Open Doors report: Postgraduate

students by country of origin

Graduate

2000-2015 US,


Open Doors report: Postgraduate

students by country of origin

International students

Selected years

1949-2000;2001-

2015 US,


Open Doors report:

INTERNATIONAL SCHOLARS BY

PLACE OF ORIGIN

Scholars

2002-2015 US,

Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED)Ongoing and finished PhD studies

by citizenship

Doctors and PhD students

1957-2014, Access to microdata covering only from 1993-2013

Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR) Employed doctoral scientists and

engineers

Doctors

2013 US,

US,

American Community Survey (ACS)

Number of foreign born doctorate

holders residing in the US by

country of birth and citizenship

Phd holders

2005-2009


October 2017 259

Table 64: Stay rates

Source Indikator Percentage

Stay rate of

foreign

students in

country of

destination

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Plans of foreign recipients of U.S. S&E doctorates to stay in the United States, by field and place of origin: 1998–2009

50%


Five-year stay rates for U.S. S&E doctorate recipients with temporary visas at graduation, by selected country/economy: 2011

66%


Five-year stay rates for U.S. S&E doctorate recipients with temporary visas at graduation, by selected country/economy: 2012

60.4%


Stay rates of temporary visa holder U.S. doctorate recipients from top 10 countries of origin: 2005-–15, in percent

50-65%

Lan, Xiaohuan. "Permanent visas and temporary jobs: evidence from postdoctoral participation of foreign PhDs in the United States." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31.3 (2012): 623-640.

U.S.-trained, non-citizen PhDs in science and engineering who work in the US after graduation

75%

Finn, Michael G. Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from US universities, 2007. No. 10-SEP-0168. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2010.

Five-year Stay Rates of Temporary Resident Doctorate Recipients in 2007; (2002 grads)

62

Finn, Michael G. Stay rates of foreign doctorate recipients from US universities, 2007. No. 10-SEP-0168. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE), Oak Ridge, TN (United States), 2010.

Ten- year Stay Rates of Temporary Resident Doctorate Recipients in 2007; (1997 grads)

60%

Han X, Stocking G, Gebbie MA, Appelbaum RP. Will They Stay or Will They Go? International Graduate Students and Their Decisions to Stay or Leave the U.S. upon Graduation. Montoya ARH, ed. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0118183. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118183.

Share of foreign S&E doctorate recipients staying in the U.S.

50%

PhDs working

in research


Share of foreign born S&E doctorate holders with academic employment in postdoc positions, by place of birth; average of 1973–2013

33.1%


Share of foreign born S&E doctorate holders with academic employment in postdoc positions, by place of

47.5%


October 2017 260

birth; 2013

Lan, Xiaohuan. "Permanent visas and temporary jobs: evidence from postdoctoral participation of foreign PhDs in the United States." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31.3 (2012): 623-640.

Share of researchers taking postdoctoral positions in US-trained, foreign PhDs who stay in the US after graduation

54%

Lee, Hsing-fen, Marcela Miozzo, and Philippe Laredo. "Career patterns and competences of PhDs in science and engineering in the knowledge economy: The case of graduates from a UK research-based university." Research Policy 39.7 (2010): 869-881.

Share of graduates having their first job in academia/work as a public researcher/ work in technical positions in manufacturing

30-42%

Getting in touch with the EU

IN PERSON All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct Information Centres.

You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: http://europa.eu/contact

ON THE PHONE OR BY E-MAIL Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.

You can contact this service

– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), – at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or

– by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at:

http://europa.eu

EU PUBLICATIONS You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at:

http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained

by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact)

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions,

go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to

datasets from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and

non-commercial purposes.

The MORE III study aims at updating, improving and further develop the set of indicators

of the MORE2 study in order to meet the need for indicators over time and assess the

impact on researchers of policy measures introduced for the development of an open

labour market for researchers. This study gathers data to highlight emerging policy

needs and priorities regarding mobility patterns, career paths and working conditions of

researchers.

The study carries out two surveys: the first one addressed to researchers currently

working in the EU (and EFTA) in higher education institutions (HEI) and the second one

to researchers currently working outside Europe.

Studies and reports

KI-0

2-1

8-3

56

-EN

-N

Date post:	20-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Survey on researchers outside of Europe · 2018. 4. 17. · regarding their mobility patterns,...

Documents